User talk:FleetCommand

Comparison of notetaking software

Hi there,

I wanted to add a note taking software called cherrytree and you delete it thinking it was vandalism. I didn't know where to write the URL so I added it in edit summary, I guess you didn't see it : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_notetaking_software&action=history

So cherrytree really is a note taking software!

There is still a lot of them missing, I'm gonna add them, I hope you won't delete it. http://linuxandfriends.com/2009/08/03/note-taking-free-microsoft-onenote-alternatives-for-linux/

If I do a mistake in page formatting or in making link, feel free to correct it.

Cheers.

109.190.20.38 (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: September 2011

You wrote:

"...but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Windows Search, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. P.S. Please do not use second person ("you") in Wikipedia articles. "

I'm just seeing your note 'now', (is there a way to have wiki send you an email when someone sends you a personal note or edits your user page?)...

What part of the material I wrote do you need more references on besides the length discussion of the problems I wrote about at the bottom of my text?

There are MANY complaints about this. But it's also documented in the help in windows 7: under 'Libraries: frequently asked questions' (comments in brackets are my paraphrase of what was said (1st line), or comments).

[A folder stored on a network location isn't remotely indexed]. "A network folder can only be included in a library if the content of the folder has been added to the search index. If the folder is already indexed on the device where it's stored, you should be able to include it directly in the library.

[Note, you can't index a network folder unless it has already been index! Why would I want to index a folder that was already index?]

If the network folder is not indexed, an easy way to index it is to make the folder available offline. This will create offline versions of the files in the folder and add these files to the search index on your computer. After you make a folder available offline, you can include it in a library.

[note: I spoke to this aspect of them expecting you to cache terabytes of library information on your local disk as a prerequisite for searching by your local machine, and noted it's impracticality ... as they note:]

When you make a network folder available offline, copies of all the files in that folder will be stored on your computer's hard disk. Take this into consideration if the network folder contains a large number of files.

To make a folder available offline While connected to the network, locate the network folder that you want to make available offline.

Right-click the folder, and then click Always available offline.

The Always available offline command

Notes If you don't see the Always available offline command in the right-click menu for a network folder, you might be using an edition of Windows 7 that doesn't support offline files. [If you aren't using windows Professional or Ultimate you are screwed! (source: personal knowledge and checked @ http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/compare?T1=tab15)]

If the network folder you're trying to include is stored on a computer that's running an [***]older version of Windows[***], you might be able to make it compatible with Windows 7 libraries by installing Windows Search 4.0 on the computer, and then indexing it. For more information about Windows Search 4.0, see the Windows Search website.

[There we see them telling us the only way to make it compatible is to run WinXP or Winserver 2003, as they were they last OS's able to run Windows Search 4.0). ]

Is including the above copyrighted, hard to reference material what is needed for attribution? It's not like I can hyperlink to a MS-help chapter... Athena (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned non-free image File:Personyze logo.jpg

Hello, FleetCommand. You have new messages at Mabdul's talk page.
Message added 22:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

mabdul 22:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

whine back?!

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

OH WOW.... I think I got it! Should I remove my above note? an put it back on my page?? Or rather would you prefer it? No prob!... Astara Athenea (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Consumerization page

Hi There, I would like to help solve any issues with this page. Can you please let me know exactly how to work out each individual item in your list? Thank you. Cesare. CesareGarlati @ cal.berkeley.edu

Hi, Cesare. Did you check Talk:Consumerization? I believe you find the explanation that I gave there useful. You can maintain the discussion there, so that others can help too.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you FleetCommand. I think I got it: I re-uploaded my charts and added source and credits for the underlying data. I also submitted proof of ownership of copyright to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Cesare--Cgarlati (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Brosix for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brosix is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brosix (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone is trying to delete a page

Hello,

I saw that you did many times tidying and cleaning of this page: Brosix

Someone is trying to delete it.

This article is on Wikipedia for more than 2 years. There are 24 external references talking about Brosix. Many people contributed to this article in the last 2 years.

What should we do to keep it?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanch2 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Two words: Wikipedia:Notability

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: disambig ATI

ATI currently redirects to ATI Technologies. However, that company no longer exists as such since 2007, and indeed the brand has also been obsoleted since 2010. The linked article doesn't include the history of the brand since 2006, so I'm disambiguating references to the term "ATI" so it's clearer what is meant. Eventually, we may be able to change where ATI points to. I'll note this at Talk:ATI too, thanks for reminding me. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Move revert

I just reverted your move of SkyDrive to Windows Live SkyDrive. The reverse move was just made in December with this rationale:

In some areas of the Microsoft website etc. it's being called Microsoft SkyDrive, sometimes it's being called Windows Live SkyDrive, and sometimes just SkyDrive. So SkyDrive is the best name as there is no confusion. See http://www.liveside.net/2011/12/08

Please start an RM if you'd still like to move it. – Pnm (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I knew that it was moved and I reverted it today. But what I didn't know was that you have also joined the rank of edit warriors and respond revert with counter-revert. (Or have you always been and it is a mistake on my part that I remember you as a good Wikipedian?) Seriously, what gives you the right to revert and denies me such a right? Fleet Command (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you knew. Your edit summary didn't indicate that you had seen the page history, and I assumed you hadn't. Several weeks have passed then, so I didn't think of your move a revert or mine a counter-revert. I started a move discussion here. – Pnm (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, huh? Well, I believe you; although you obviously knew that the article have twice been renamed forth and back and that a revert is most probably controversial. Still, I am not going to involve myself further in this matter, so you might like to delete your move request. (No pressure.) If there is any consolation, I am also sorry for my MOS:TITLE mistake. It is WP:TITLE, not MOS:TITLE. I thought these two pages were merged. Fleet Command (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground Control (film)

I believe your major concerns with Ground Control (film) have been addressed. I'm still slogging through the non-English sources, but in addressing WP:NOEFFORT concerns, the article is undergoing improvement and now offers our readers something more than a does IMDB.[1] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Features new to Windows 7 article: IExecuteCommand

I have reinserted the info about IExecuteCommand, added a ref and made it non-geeky. If Your Highness may permit that. - xpclient ^Talk 09:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

User:FleetCommand makes edit wars

As you can see he is using your username. I have reported this at Usernames_for_administrator_attention. Please make your comment there. /\ talk← Aviyal →Policy) /\ 12:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Fleet Command (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Battleground mentality, civility

No need to turn your strict interpretation of our rules into a WP:BATTLE [2]. You should review WP:IAR. If application of a policy doesn't make sense, don't do it. A bit of WP:AGF and WP:Civility would go a long way too and keep you from making further personal attacks. Toddst1 (talk)

I do not assume good faith in edit warriors. But if you stop hitting the revert button for the hell of doing it, I may reconsider being bound by rules from which administrators are exempt, just because they have power. Fleet Command (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Undoing one absurd edit once with an explanation on a talk page is hardly an edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I knew it! To you, policy is absurd. You consider yourself above the laws. Fleet Command (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hardly. If you think I'm abusing my authority, I urge you to take this immediately to WP:ANI.

However, policies need to be applied in-context and I'm encouraging you to understand that. Rigid application of policies is not beneficial to the project and only frustrates folks that run into such a practice. Lack of good faith and confrontational comments such as those you're making are really not constructive. Toddst1 (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrative abusive tactics are becoming a cliche, really. The "policies need to be applied in-context" line has grown old, not to mention how out of context it is here. Simple policy that applies in this case and you disregarded: When there is a better alternative to revert, do not revert. You had many such alternatives.

Now, I am trying to come up with good words to thank certain benevolent Wikipedians but you keep disturbing my focus. Perhaps you can prove your merit for being assumed good faith in, by leaving me alone. Fleet Command (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome!

You're welcome ... just doing my job, as it was pretty clear cut and I really take a dim view of doing that sort of thing on someone else's talk page. Don't worry ... a lot of other people have thanked me for admin actions that made their wikilives easier, even if temporarily. It's what we do. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Style

Here's the issue. In those instances, the Oxford (capital) comma is necessary since it eliminates confusion and clarifies the sentence. It's disruptive to have perplexing sentences such as "Symantec, McAfee and Kaspersky Lab, three competing antivirus vendors..." It reads that McAfee and Kaspersky Lab are one together and that three additional competing antivirus vendors are included. It's better to stick with clarity than confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Echidna (talk • contribs) 03:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dameon Tools

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. I've posted on the talk page, happy to discuss there. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Move done (I'm an admin myself). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 12:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: WinHex

Hello FleetCommand. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of WinHex, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Thank you. GB fan 22:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello FleetCommand. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for helping with File:Firefox-fonts-advanced.png image file. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Excellent: File:BournePoster.jpg -> File:The Bourne Ultimatum (2007 film poster).jpg – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. When you recently edited VOB, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AAC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

File move

Resolved

Hi, thanks for helping on File:Natalya Korolevskaya and Yulia Tymoshenko in the Verkhovna Rada 3 June 2008.jpg but i dont think this was handled properly. I am a file mover as well and was notified on that image page. I saw the situation and then had placed the template {{split media}} so that an admin can look into it. The normal course of action in such cases is the admin separates the two image from the history and creates two separate page (which still show the original uploader as the uploader of the pic),(more here [3]) as of now i see that this has not been done and rather you have uploaded the file with your id. I agree that you are trying to help here but the owner of the pic may not be happy with this action, regards-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DBigXray

Well, I am afraid you are completely wrong. Not only have I been doing the splitting for a while now, I am also the creator of Template:Split media - processed. So far as there is consensus or policy support to do so, there is no problem with splitting. In this case, the file in question was licensed under a free license which gives us quite a lot of room to maneuver.

Even if you were right, we have WP:IAR. I even close AfDs sometimes. Fleet Command (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, thats ok with other things about licensing and all, but i still feel that its good if the original uploaders name is shown as the file uploader, reason if some other user has a query regarding the image he could go directly to the right person to talk to (eg File:Lincoln 3.jpg and case here [4] ). any thoughts ?-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I took care of that too. The original uploader is Ok14 from Ukrainian Wikipedia. I credited him. But if you are worried about the Uploader field in the file history, never mind: Once it goes to Wikimedia Commons, the uploader name will become a bot's name. Yes, they might expect a bit of responsibility from me, but I know how to handle them.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I that case i am satisfied. Thanks for discussing the issue, regards-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Just an opinion of mine: a link to the file File:Natalia Korolevska.jpg in the comment section or edit summary at File:Natalya Korolevskaya and Yulia Tymoshenko in the Verkhovna Rada 3 June 2008.jpg would be helpful -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft Security Essentials

Hey, suggest you make sure your PR request is properly processed, the last PR was in 2009, and it seems there's some issue with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The article that was peer reviewed on 2009 has little resemblance to the current state of the article. I think it is high time this article became a featured article, but before that it must be peer reviewed. Fleet Command (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt it, it seemed that the original PR was listed rather than the archive2 one. Not to worry! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit wars

The problem with saying BRD is that the edit wasn't actually that bold. Discussion is of course useful, while of course discussion involves multiple participants, one of them starting with bullying suggestions about removal of edit privileges over single revert hardly seems collegial to me, so if you want to take a look in the mirror about "Doing so is not a good way of resolving the disputes" you might want to start addressing your own manner.

Onto the matter in hand, one of the links you chose to restore is a forum post WP:ELNO no 10. "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups..." (emphasis added). It also likely fails others such as not being a unique encyclopedic resource beyond what this article could be should it become featured, not to mention we have a big nav box at the bottom listing out similar products.

The second link to a piece of software for converting files, this arguably fails WP:NOT a howto or link farm, but as an external link fails point 13 of ELNO, "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article" the site isn't about nero burning rom so fails this. If you want to take it a step further, then read the nature of external links, they are about adding further encyclopedic information links to third party products which add no encyclopedic content about the subject do not fit that. The overall summary of WP:EL is "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article". --62.254.139.60 (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

One revert does not make an edit war. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok I see, so I make a single revert, you make a threat about blocking from that in the interest of resolving a dispute, justifying that this single revert, of someone I've had not previous interaction with, is a "war" of some sort, I shouldn't make any comment on that since that's just creating an argument. Again look in the mirror. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Command & Conquer: Generals: Inappropriate?

The terms in the article that are referred to as "euphemistic", aren't really euphemisms, as they are the exact terms they are referred to as in the game, and so I think that it is incorrect to refer to those terms as being "euphemistic", because they aren't being used as alternatives to other terms. Nohomers48 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Media Player Classic

Hi FleetCommand, Before a remark, look my modifications: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_Player_Classic&action=historysubmit&diff=489245583&oldid=485346857 It was already! It is not me who added the link, I just corrected the problem. Thanks, regards — Neustradamus (✉) 16:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)