Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:42, 11 October 2014

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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!

Hello, Codename Lisa, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I'm Mr. Stradivarius, one of the thousands of editors here at Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages

  How to edit a page

  Help pages

  Tutorial

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

— Mr. Stradivarius 18:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Media player discussion

Hello, would you like to discuss the edit and subsequent revert in Template:Media player? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondra.pelech (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ondra.pelech

It is a pleasure to have you in my talk page. Yes, indeed I love discussing it. What do you have in mind?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain you reasons for the revert in more detail? You are indeed right, that the vertical space has grown, but it wasn't in vain. The change added a lot of information and also removed few redundant entries. Also I don't see how the distinction between Free software and Proprietary software could be non-Neutral point of view; I skimmed the page but haven't found anything about software licensing. So could you also comment on this? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondra.pelech (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ondra.pelech

I am terribly sorry for the delay in my response. I was ... horribly busy. Since I won't be able to discuss this fully, please go ahead and do the change anyway. After all, you are entitled to receive a full discussion after being reverted. So, instead of that, you can at least have your changes.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Traffic at AfD

Hi.

I'm assuming (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't have any problem with keeping articles on operating system utility programs so long as there are a few reliable sources that discuss the program beyond a bare description of the program's features. Based on a half-dozen of your AfDs nominations, I'm also getting the impression that you're not checking to see if these sources exist. I'll go a little further out on the limb and say that I'm thinking it's annoying to you that I've decided to oppose almost all of those AfDs, and I'm certainly annoyed that a rare vacation evening that had been set aside for nethack was devoted instead to trawling through bad scans of ancient issues of PC Magazine.

So. Let's talk about annoyance reduction.

For your future nominations in this area, I'd like you to ask of you a favor: add a sentence or two along the lines of "The best sources I could find were x, y and z; they don't offer any more detail than the man page. A quick check of PC Magazine and Infoworld via Google Books turned up p, q and r, but these are only passing references and there doesn't appear to be anything else of more substance." If I see you're making an effort, that's great, I'm happy to work with that. If you're making an effort and not recording the results, I can't distinguish that from no effort being made.

I do have access to a couple of world-class research libraries, and as I demonstrated at Lp (Unix) I'm not adverse to sitting down in the stacks for an afternoon tracking down trivia that's not accessible online. If you think it would helpful, you're more than welcome to ping me with articles you'd like to put up at AfD and I'll take a look.

And with that, I have a valkyrie and a kitten who would like to go stomping through Gehennom.

Be well,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Lesser Cartographies

I must say this is awkward, to say the least. You see, in deciding to help keep Lp (Unix), its notability was never a factor, let alone a great factor. If notability had been a huge factor, (1) I'd have never consented and (2) the article would never have been kept. The five pillars of Misplaced Pages (5P) override all other policies (or their interpretations thereof). I consented to keep the article only because you put up such a good effort. The value of your act of working and the value of cooperating with your supersedes deleting any piece of article; even Misplaced Pages policy concurs with this morally correct verdict.

Now, here is the catch: Sometimes, not only notability is not a factor in keeping an article, it is not a factor in nominating it for deletion either. In other words, I can provide evidence of having searched for sources only and only if I do so; and I will do so only and only if I feel that doing so actually has an impact on the nomination. I don't know how many of my nominations you've seen, but notification system suggests Deltree, Atrrib and Lp. So, you know that WP:NOTMANUAL was sometimes my primary drive. This policy is one of the 5P and takes precedence over everything, including notability. To resolve this issue, a complete rewrite is required. A complete rewrite can be done even after the article is deleted; in that light, you don't need stop your kitten and Valkyrie from stomping through Gehennom. (If you need access to deleted material, an admin can and will help.) So all in all, to fulfill your favor, I need post ex facto knowledge of what's is going to happen in AfD. (I need a time machine or psychic abilities.)

Finally, let me show you how big the problem is: Template:Windows commands and Template:Unix commands show a portion of articles whose existence is in violation of Misplaced Pages policies. (You can tell me that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress but please bear in mind that some progresses must never start; like a robbery.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa. First, let me introduce myself. I'm a scientist and as such I'm used to (and respect) frank exchanges on the merits of ideas. If you think that my work on salvaging an article doesn't meet your expectations, I'd much rather you tell me that than give me a pass based on effort. My funding agencies don't care about how much work I put in, only the quality. I hope you'll be comfortable doing the same.

As to policy violations requiring deletion: We have (as of a few minutes ago) 230,372 articles that need references (and those are distinct from the 239,621 article that need more references), 14,040 articles with original research, and 5906 where the neutrality is disputed. All of those articles are policy violations. The community has decided that it's better to have some articles violate a subset of policies than to do a grand purge. (See Misplaced Pages:Contribution Team/Backlogs for the current numbers.)

This doesn't apply to all policy violations, of course, but those (with one exception) are usually handled via WP:CSD: copyright violations, attack pages, WP:BLP, patent nonsense, etc. The single exception is notability, which essentially is a judgment that a policy-conformant article cannot be written on the topic due to the absence of reliable sources.

So, to the best of my understanding, if you run across an article that is written like a manual, here's the template to use:

This article contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. Please help rewrite the content so that it is more encyclopedic or move it to Wikiversity, Wikibooks, or Wikivoyage.

That's the way things are done at the moment. The way you're proposing could also work, but I don't think it would end up working as well. The vast majority of our editors will never start an article, much less take one to FA (nice work, btw!). If they're looking up ATTRIB and don't find an article, their first impulse isn't going to be to start writing one. However, if they do find an awful, templated article, some of them will be moved to try to improve it. That process gets us to more and more high-quality articles than a process that removes policy-violating articles (with the obvious exceptions).

The best expression of this I've seen is WP:Deletion is not cleanup: If the subject of an article has been proven to pass notability guidelines, there is no need for a deletion discussion. Articles are listed from time to time at the Articles for deletion page with the rationale being something along the lines of, “This article is a mess. It needs to be rewritten.” Discussions like that are often speedily closed because that is not a valid criterion; besides, if the article needs to be rewritten, that is what the {{rewrite}} template is for. If an article can be improved through normal editing, simply fix it.

I'm looking forward to continuing to work with you. Best, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

Please look at the following links:

• http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc771254%28v=ws.10%29.aspx
• Template:Manual/doc

These are examples of documentation pages. Per WP:NOTMANUAL, contents like these are not allowed in Misplaced Pages. An article that entirely fails to comply with this policy cannot be improved through normal editing and needs to be deleted. Putting {{rewrite}} an {{manual}} is a privilege, extended to well-meaning editors, not a right or mandate. Used otherwise, they are nothing but worthless strips of text that only serve to ridicule the person who inserted them.

Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. But any progress is to be made, bad foundations that impede progress must be removed. For example, as you said, timekeeping on Unix is a deep scholarly topic. However, as long as Date (Unix) article exists in its current form, no one will bother write an scholarly article.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You lost me at "cannot be improved". Given that there are multiple magazine articles about each of these commands, and that these articles look nothing like manuals, I think it's a pretty trivial step to writing a not-manual encyclopedia article that summarizes the magazine articles. What am I missing? You don't consider DELTREE a manual-like article at this point, right? (if for no other reason than it doesn't give any of the command syntax). Of course, there may exist a command that is so obscure that there are no reliable sources outside of the manuals. /bin/true might be one (although I could probably find several discussions about how this is the simplest useful program to write, and how write it in bash, assembly, etc.). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

n.b. Yep, there exist reliable sources for /bin/true. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Why lost? "Deltree" and "Lp" were not manual-like. They had notability problems, which you solved. "Print" is written like a manual, which you seem to agree with its deletion. "Date" is also like that but you are interested in rewriting and have said "keep". (Only I don't understand what connects the dots here.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey there,

Just gave a technical keynote talk that went over unusually well. I'm still basking in the endorphins. So while I'm still filled with loving-kindness for all humanity and most of the intel processor architecture....

You are what connects the dots. You have a reputation of being one of the vanishingly small number of editors here who would have an understanding of why DELTREE or ATTRIB were actually important. So when you nominated that set of articles for deletion, you were putting your reputation behind the assertion that these articles cannot be improved. So far, so good.

For some subset of these article, reliable sources exist and they can be improved—you didn't know that at the time, and if you didn't grow up reading Infoworld and PC Magazine there's no reason I would expect you to know that. So I asked you, for future articles that you're considering for AfD, to follow WP:BEFORE and make a good-faith effort to determine whether reliable sources exist before you make the nomination.

Then the conversation seems to have gone off the rails. At one point I thought you were arguing that if an article is written in the form of a manual, it ought to be deleted, and that you have no responsibility to first see if the article could be improved with WP:RS as an alternative to deletion. That's so far outside the norms here that I'm certain I've misunderstood you. We both agree that articles that cannot be improved should be deleted, and I'm nearly certain we both agree that mere issues of writing (including WP:NOTMANUAL) are not a sufficient reason to delete an article than can be improved. And now that you know that PC Magazine had an endearing habit of writing articles like The Top Seven CP/M Commands You've Never Heard Of!, you're willing to poke around a bit in google books before nominating another command-line article for deletion.

Are we good?

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, LC

I saw your message two days ago but either didn't have time or couldn't focus strongly enough to write an adequate reply. Have you noticed the tag at the top of my talk page? Well, when it comes to Misplaced Pages, I am one distracted guy these days.

Anyway, IMHO, writing Misplaced Pages is sometimes a lot like attending to an overgrown flower terrace or balcony: There are pots everywhere but not all of them have flowers. Some have flowers only; some have flowers entangled with weeds; some have only weeds because the flowers have long died. The first order of business is to take out the weed. Pots containing the weed are the easiest: Pick a box, unroot the weeds and toss them in the box. Changing the pot's soil and planting something else in it is both tedious and does not the same emergency attached to it as weed-killing. Unweeding the pots with the flowers is more difficult; sometimes it cannot be done overnight, even though one is ready to work on them.

Now, here is my perception: Articles that look purely like a documentation page or tutorial are like dandelion: They are purely weed in the context of Misplaced Pages but make good contributions to open-source projects that collect man pages. Take the article Date (Unix) for instance. The article title is analogous to a pot. It must contain what is analogous to a flower, i.e. the intricacies of date management in Unix and Unix-like but instead contains a man page, which is analogous to the weed, even if it is a beautiful weed like dandelion. The weed must be unrooted, i.e. the article deleted; then, actual flower planted instead, i.e. scholarly contents about date management in Unix. So, yes, when it comes to articles whose contents must be entirely replaced, the rule of thumb is "delete first, rewrite when you had time". The deletion and rewrite need not to be connected.

Of course, my flower analogy ends with articles that have notability problem. It is not a case of an overgrown flower terrace anymore. I promise that from now on, I will try to have a more transparent approach towards providing evidence of notability (or lack, thereof) as you requested. One can argue that notability is an extension of verifiability and the burden of providing the source is with the contributor. But I do agree that we cannot build an encyclopedia by eluding responsibility anytime the policy allowed. (I wish people understood that the latter cuts both ways!)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Future

Hello! How are you, how is your work going on?

Is everything fine???

I'm opening my account after a long time. Anyways I saw something unexpected on the web today, The Verge and Softpedia reported that Microsoft has dropped its code name for the upcoming Windows version simply call it to be Windows which was expected to be Windows 9. See it here and here. Also you may try this.

Now if it becomes true. Then I think it'll be a lot of problem for Misplaced Pages as all the OS code names have separate articles and the new OS will be called simply Windows, here'll be lot of confusion. Isn't it?

I think I must create remove the redirect and edit an article named Windows (operating system) (like Android (operating system) for it. What so you think???  HPD  11:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, HPD. So nice to see you. I was deliberately ignoring Misplaced Pages these days but came just because of your message.

Anyway, please keep a record of these links but do nothing for now. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot have anything on this yet. Wording of the sources strongly suggests that it is a pure speculation: "Microsoft drops hints in several commercials". This is too shaky for a company that has a history of breaking promises. Also please note that before Windows 3.0, Windows didn't have any number in its name. Yet, we have Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0 and Windows 2.1x. We cannot rule out the possibly of Misplaced Pages articles still having numbers in their names.

Nice to see you around again.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep! You're correct, per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't do anything at least for now. You know now-a-days there are rumors more than actual news, for example, an unknown site reported that the next version of Android i.e Android L will be code named as "Lion" and 6 other sites copied that source saying it. Anyway, I'll keep a record of those links (regarding Windows) and will contact you if Microsoft announces anything officially regarding this.

Thanks you so much for your kind words, but you know I'm also avoiding Misplaced Pages because its feels lonely now, Drew have left editing since 4-5 months as he's getting busy with his job and couldn't spend time here. So, I'm also avoiding.

But you can message me anytime you want, also you can give a call or message on my public phone number: +91-7377660204. Good luck! And Thanks.  HPD  13:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_review##File:Microsoft_Windows_XP_logo_and_wordmark.svg

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_review##File:Microsoft_Windows_XP_logo_and_wordmark.svg. Thanks. - TheChampionMan1234 05:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

Please comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A bit of nostalgia for you

	The floppy disk punch of goodwill
	A reminder that while I disagree with you, you're someone worth disagreeing with. You do a lot of good work here, and I appreciate it. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of extinct mammals

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of extinct mammals. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Internet information services article

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DE logics (talk • contribs) 04:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Your reversion

Hi Lisa, I have no strong opinion about your revert at Hibernation (computing); however I don't understand your edit summary there at all. Could you please elaborate on it? Where exactly was the change from "The" to "the"? Keep in mind that I use a screen reader, so that change isn't so obvious to me. Graham87 14:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I realise what you were talking about. So I take it you didn't like the other recent edits either? Or did you not intend to revert them? You seem to know more about this subject than I do ... the article is only on my watchlist to guard against vandalism. Graham87 14:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

I deeply and sincerely apologize for the inconvenience that I caused you. It was entirely my fault. I intended to revert to your revision, not over your revision. It has never happened before and I assure you, I will do my best to make sure it never ever happens again.

I hope you'll find the current state of affairs to your liking.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries, sounds good to me. Graham87 01:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nofel Izz

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nofel Izz. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines for controversy sections

I'm writing to you with regards to your edits on Freemake Video Converter. If I understood you correctly, you removed the Controversy heading because you didn't think that the two subsections constituted as controversy. While I couldn't find much talk about the alleged FFmpeg licensing violation, the bundling of adware and spyware with free software has been a big polarizing topic for years. So why do you think that it doesn't qualify as a proper controversy? Does Misplaced Pages have any guidelines on controversy sections that I'm not aware of? --AllOriginalBubs (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Hi AllOriginalBubs. Misplaced Pages:Controversial articles isn't quite on point, but might be a good place to start. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• @AllOriginalBubs: Hi. Codename Lisa here. Glad to have you in my talk page.

The problems that triggered the revert is much simpler: First, if a section that is titled "controversy", it must naturally talk about a controversy, whereas "Freemake Video Converter" does not talk about one at all. (It talks about incidents that might or might not trigger a controversy but there is no talk about the controversy itself.) Second, for a group of subsections to be under a super-topic called "Controversy", all of them must concern themselves with corresponding controversies.

Since you say you couldn't find much controversy surrounding FFmpeg licensing, putting that section under a "controversy" main heading is pointless.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Artificial intelligence

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Artificial intelligence. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Tense guidelines

According to ctrl+f, the word "tense" doesn't even appear on the manual page. I changed ghost's tense to reflect the article on Microsoft Bob, another software product that is no longer in development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooberpatrol66 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Windows 10

The PROD got declined; WP:FUTURE only really covers things that are purely speculative (i.e. any coverage of Threshold before the official announcement today would have been in violation). Since 10 is definitely going to happen, it is not in violation. Additionally, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." (emphasis mine). ViperSnake151  Talk  17:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Although it says "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate", can you at least give time for the rest of the article to be created? ViperSnake151  Talk  17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151:The speedy delete has already been declined. There's nothing to worry about. The article's not going away. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: Actually, Viper's message above reads: "The PROD got declined". So, I think he knows already. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems that Lisa didn't check facts before she proposed deletion. --Maxl (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Maxl: What fact there is to check? Or maybe you've forgotten Longhorn and Blackcomb? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not about Longhorn, it's about Windows 10 and that's what the article is about. You could first have verified the truth of the article before proposing deletion. (and yes, I know, you "ended" the discussion. But that's not entirely fair - not letting people answering your comments. --Maxl (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Maxl: Maxl, please do not play dumb in this critical case. Everyone knows that the elusive concept of truth is one thing that Misplaced Pages doesn't care about, so much so that "truth" has become a vandals' slang in Misplaced Pages. (The signature of a wiki-vandal reads: I write the truth!) I didn't check the truth because my reason was a part of WP:FUTURE that didn't mention truth. Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, what makes you think I play dumb? I simply said that I had the impression that you did not check the facts which say that Win10 DOES exist. My impression seems to be right: Your assumption that Win 10 was a crystal ball was wrong which you could have known, had you checked the facts. So much is obvious. --Maxl (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Maxl: First and foremost, there was no question Windows being a crystal ball, ball, crystalline or anything but an OS. See? This is playing dumb.

But seriously, I do acknowledge that Microsoft has indeed announced such a Windows and I still maintain that an announcement alone does not merit an article and we should have waited until a public beta was out. I don't believe one must write an article when someone working for Microsoft opens his mouth.

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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.

I could swear I selected TW → PROD. Somehow, Twinkle marked it as CSD. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Now, now, dear Viper. Let's not lose our cool. WP:FUTURE reads:

Misplaced Pages is not a collection of product announcements... short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate.

We go a long way back and have had compromise about much more difficult issues. Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Windows 9 problem

Suppose that (in 2030 or so) someone familiar with Windows 7, 8, and 10 as names of old versions of Windows and is surprised to find nothing in response to knowing about Windows 9. We need to re-direct Windows 9 somewhere. Georgia guy (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Georgia guy:. Hi. God knows how many times I've had this discussion with people but here it is:

I believe that a person in 2030, if encountered with this redirect, will first be amazed as to why he or she is in Windows 10. Then, he suspects that something is faulty or a vandalism has occurred. After much wild goose chase, he eventually realizes that such a thing doesn't exist. The problem is that a redirect doesn't say "this topic doesn't exist." But in the absence of this redirect, the person is taken directly to a search page where the latter is communicated. He will even find links to list of Windows releases.

Please note that by your logic, we must have redirects such as Windows NT 1, Windows NT 2, etc.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Lisa, you may be interested in this RFD. � (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for deletion of Windows 9

You requested that the Windows 9 redirect to Windows 10 should be deleted. I am quite at a loss as to why you thought that was a good idea, and I believe that was quite unreasonable of you to do. The authority of a discussion to establish precedence only makes sense as long as the underlying facts are unchanged. As redirect deletion decision was based purely on WP:Crystal (new version of Windows not announced), and Windows 10 is now announced, that discussion is entirely irrelevant.

You could argue that everybody should always follow procedure and request an undeletion through format channels. However, that would bureaucracy purely for bureaucracy's sake, which is the very opposite of the idea of Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules exists for a reason. I urge you to consider whether your actions are actually helping Misplaced Pages, or stopping other people from making Misplaced Pages better. See also Misplaced Pages:Follow all rules and Misplaced Pages:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Thue (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Thue: We always knew there was never going to be a Windows 9 and now there is proof for that. Only I hated to resort to this argument, least to raise the question of "How do you know it?" (But seriously, how many times must history repeat itself?) Instead, I acted like a good Wikipedian and per WP:BURDEN, asked "How do you know there will ever be a Windows 9?" But you've taken your audience wrong. I and those who knew there would never be a "Windows 9" were the true victims of bureaucracy, because someone told a lie, invented a name ("Windows 9") and forced us through xFDs to defend all the Misplaced Pages holds holy: Integrity, verifiability and encyclopedic value. Why can't people get closure from something that is eventually proven to be wrong?

The part of WP:IGNORE that is always ignored in error is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages ".

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Lisa, do you work for MSFT? � (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ï¿½: People who work for MSFT must have "" in their aliases and are forbidden from calling themselves "Codename Lisa" or any other username containing a Linux distribution. No, I don't.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

o_O what policy did you just quote? I thought it because you claimed having insider knowledge We always knew there was never going to be a Windows 9 � (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have meager knowledge, but mainly "how many times must history repeat itself?" Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have requested that you be temp-banned for acting in bad faith: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Request temporary ban of User:Codename Lisa for acting in bad faith. Thue (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sway infobox

I chose the software infobox template for the Sway article because other web applications use this template. Sway is much more of an application that happens to be on the web than a website, similar to Office Online or Google Currents which use the software infobox. What do you think? -heat_fan1 (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Heat fan1

I think template name doesn't matter; all that matters is the function. {{Infobox website}} provides very useful fields. {{Infobox software}} must only be used when you want to provide versioning info and actually do have enough sources to provide that info. Web apps are not like that; they get updated without a warning and most of the time, you can't say when it happened and what is the version number. (The best you can come up with is the earliest date that a secondary source has noticed the update and that might not happen with small updates.)

By the way, did you receive my ping about the logo? It needs source. Without source, files are deleted, regardless of whether they are free or not.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I replaced the infobox on Office Online. But Google Currents was indeed a computer program and {{Infobox software}} was needed for it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about the name being irrelevant; of course that's true. But the style of the two infoboxes is different and they should be used consistently. Further, the information is not the same. Obviously versioning is a big part of the software box, but so is platforms, which is not mentioned on the website one. Once Sway expands to other platforms like Windows Phone, iOS, and Android, website doesn't provide a proper location for that information. For the most part, web applications are much more closely resemble traditional software that happens to run in a browser than to a traditional website like Microsoft.com.

Further, if you review Category: Web applications, you'll notice that most of these use Template: Infobox software. I'd prefer to return both Sway and Office Online to the software infobox. Hopefully you'll agree.

Also, I updated the source on the logo. Thanks for the tip.-heat_fan1 (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Heat fan1: Hello again. Infobox software doesn't have fields pertaining registration requirements, number of users, content license and editor. The last two are categorically important for Sway, judging by its promotional video. (It is a very important question for the open-source communities like Misplaced Pages.) Platform parameter doesn't apply to Sway itself; it applies to its client app, if there is any. A client app will probably needs another infobox as seen in the OneDrive article.

Office Online doesn't need a platform field at all. Its |platform= parameter was set to "web application".

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Infobox software may not have fields for registration, users, content license, and editor, but those are largely irrelevant. More relevant are similar fields like license and developer. Again, sites like Dropbox (service, Sway, SlideRocket, Feedly, Outlook Web App, Google Docs, and Office Online much more closely resemble software that happens to run in a web browser than to a traditional website. As such, field headings such as "Developer" make a lot more sense than "Editor." In my mind, Website would be used for the sharing of content, were Software is for the creation of content.

I tried to look for any previous discussion on this, but came up empty. It'd be nice if this was done consistently. -heat_fan1 (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Heat fan1: You don't have to put {{Ping}} in my own talk page; I will be notified anyway.

"Largely irrelevant"? That's where I disagree plain and simple. Also, we already do have an equivalent for |developer= in {{Infobox website}}. It is |author=. Finally, arbitrary consistency defeats the purpose of delivering the meaning. So, no, it is not nice; it is a torture. Actually, I think consistency is your main reason for starting this discussion in the first place; otherwise, you haven't so far mentioned anything appealing in {{Infobox software}} besides |platform=.

SlideRocket is using {{Infobox dot-com company}} which has all the fields that both infoboxes provide; its use of {{infobox software}} is outright redundant. Dropbox (service)'s choice of infobox has become misleading. It claims that Dropbox is only available for a handful of operating systems while I am using it from a Bada smartphone. (Article body accurately mentions that "Dropbox provides client software for" these operating systems.) Feedly article is about the software, not the service, which is very weird. You see?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

|Developer= is a much more accurate description for the creator of these sites than |author=. I'm not proposing arbitrary consistency, but useful consistency. The whole point of infoboxes is to present information in a consistent manner, but that purpose is defeated if they are not used consistently. We're at a point where the line is blurred between software and websites, but I still stand behind the fact that these services much more closely resemble traditional software than traditional websites.

Going back to current use, I'll give you that SlideRocket is a strange one. But the incomplete/inaccurate information in Dropbox (service) or Feedly does not invalidate the use of the {{infobox software}}. Further, others like Outlook Web App and Google Docs accurately depict the information using {{infobox software}}. On the other hand, Google Drive uses {{infobox website}}. Perhaps we need to modify {{infobox software}} to better reflect the changing landscape of software. -heat_fan1 (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Using "developer" in connection to a website or web app is a violation of MOS:COMPUTING § Collocation: Web apps are authored by both web developers and web designers. Consistency has never been the point of an infobox. The whole point of infobox is to present essential info in a table for brevity.

And I am going to skip the reset and ask you should have told me in the first place: What do you need? Tell me the name of the field you need and its value.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

We obviously disagree on the fundamentals of web apps. It seems obvious at this point that you see them as websites that happen to allow for content creation while I see them as applications that happen to run in a browser. That fundamental difference defines the fields that each of us sees as applicable. At this point, I think it's best left to the community to decide, though I'll leave it as you have left it for now. Thanks for the discussion. -heat_fan1 (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Heat fan1, if I may chip in here:

• I don't think it is obvious whether you two agree or disagree about the fundamentals of web apps; CL is clearly dodging this particular minefield. What seems clear to me is that you have some kind of hesitation about choosing {{infobox website}} over {{infobox software}}. I noticed that you didn't say what you need from an infobox that {{Infobox website}} doesn't provide. Why?
• You said you looked for a discussion and didn't find one. Well, here is one: Talk:Internet Explorer 9 § {{Infobox web browser}} versus {{Infobox Windows component}}. Even consistency is mentioned! Only we quickly discovered that it is a knife that cuts both ways: Consistency with IE articles or consistency with browser articles? Eventually, {{Infobox web browser}} stayed when I said presentation is all that mattered. Also, I am sure CL and User:Damaster98 had a discussion about infobox choice on some Windows Live-related article; {{Infobox website}} won.

I do believe you made a right choice to leave this matter for now: Sway is right now just a name in the air and creating and article for it is just too soon. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@FleetCommand:, thanks for chiming in. Because this will be a multi-platform software and is more than just a website, I believe there is at least 1 missing field: |Operating System=. Further, because I believe this to be software that happens to run in a browser, having a field called |Developer= is more appropriate than |Owner=, |Author=, or |Editor=.

As far as consistency is concerned, I absolutely agree. In my own work, I constantly deal with "the way things have always been done," and I'll gladly go another way if it was done incorrectly in the past. However, the template parameters description even mentions web apps under |Operating System=. I think it's indisputable that Sway is a web app. -heat_fan1 (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Template parameters description says ignore |Operating system=. That means you don't need it. And "multi-platform software"? Oh, please! Normally, I'd say WP:SPADE! But this time, you actually don't have any evidence as to what Sway actually is. And to top it off, it doesn't matter what it is; we use the infobox that fits best. Both you and CL said it too; only what you said from that point on suggests that all you care is that the title reads "Infobox software" and nothing else. Breaking and defying MOS:COMPUTING, WP:WTA or other guidelines doesn't matter to you. So, I am sorry but I am putting my foot down. Oppose. Now, unless CL is planning to negotiate with you, I don't think you have much consensus here. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course; I love to negotiate. Heat fan1 and I can fill two infoboxes, put them together and compare. Also, {{Infobox dot-com company}} has a |native_clients= field if operating system is needed. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sway

Developer(s)	Microsoft
Platform	Web browsers
Type	Presentation program
Website	www.sway.com

I think I didn't articulate my point about |Operating System= correctly. I understand that it says to ignore it for a web app. But only in that template, and not in the website template, do they even address web apps. It says that if you are using this template for a web app, which is what I have proposed, then ignore the operating system. The fact that it even addresses what we're discussing suggests that it's the correct one to use. As I mentioned in my previous post, I am looking at specific parameters, most notably platform and developer. If those were in the {{Infobox website}}, I'd be done with this conversation. I don't care what the hidden name on the top of the template is. And how do I not have evidence of what Sway is? I have a blog post and website from Microsoft, and countless media sites confirming that the software will soon be on multiple platforms. What I have suggested in no way violates and Style Manuals.

Here is the infobox I'm proposing (I hope I'm okay posting this infobox on your talk page):

heat_fan1 (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It says that if you are using this template for a web app, which is what I have proposed, then ignore the operating system. The fact that it even addresses what we're discussing suggests that it's the correct one to use. Uh, no, not really. That clause applies to locally executed web apps, which are thick clients. These programs may even have version numbers. Our subject of discussion is an online service that uses a client–server model. As you and I agreed at the very beginning, our sole criteria for choice is the fields that it supports not fields that it doesn't support.

...and countless media sites confirming that the software will soon be on multiple platforms. Correction: Not "countless media sites", only a handful. They don't confirm, they speculate. (WP:FUTURE) Not, "software will soon be on multiple platforms", but "its native clients will be available on multiple platforms", because as the blog post says, Sway has a client–server model and a "sway" always remains on the web. And most importantly, both {{Infobox software}} and {{Infobox website}} support including them, so would you please stop discussing it ad nauseam?

Here is the infobox I'm proposing. Okay, several problems: "Platform" is wrong. The client side runs in the web browser or as a native app for iOS, Android and Windows Phone. But the server side may run on a variety of platforms such as ASP.NET, PHP, Windows, Linux, IIS, Apache HTTP Server. For the client side, we might even end up having a separate infobox like OneDrive because the volume of information plus screenshot might grow too much. Also infobox software doesn't have fields pertaining registration requirements, number of users, content license and editor. Finally, "developer" is against MOS:COMPUTING#Collocation. Also, we know the creator and the owner of the service is Microsoft but it might outsource web development and web design to another entity. Even if it doesn't, just assuming it is a violation of WP:OR.

Best regards,

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

Please comment on Talk:Artificial intelligence

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Artificial intelligence. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Channel 9

Hi,

I redirected Channel9 to Channel 9 (Microsoft). I wasn't sure whether this was a good idea or not and I see you have reverted it. However, today there were six pages linking to Channel9, all referring to the Microsoft site but I fixed them after the redirect just to be safe.

• "Mark Russinovich".
• "Windows Powershell".
• "Microsoft Visual Studio".
• "Microsoft".
• "Microsoft SQL Server".
• "Metro (design language)".

I thought it might be best to redirect any future 'Channel9' links to 'Channel 9 (Microsoft)' because articles that link to Channel9 without a space all intend to link to the Microsoft page. I'm not annoyed that you have reverted my edit, I just want to know for future what to do in situations like this :) Rayna Jaymes (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

Thanks for dropping by. For the start, try not to use <ref>...</ref> in talk pages when there are alternatives. But, I digress. When it come to redirects, always bear in mind that people might search it and miss the space in "Channel 9". If they don't know why they ended up in Channel 9 (Microsoft) instead of Channel 9, they'll be confused.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your reply. I know I've been here for two or three months now but I'm still not very good at this whole wikipedia thing (I try to stick to stuff that is difficult to mess up). I don't even know how to indent this reply properly like yours. Also, I didn't know that there were alternatives to <ref>...</ref> in talk pages so thank you very much for teaching me that today :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayna Jaymes (talk • contribs) 21:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Personal computer 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:

• selling price of personal computer systems in the United States had dropped below $1,000.<ref>[http://www.pcworld.com/article/9150/average_pc_price_drops_below_1000.html Nancy Weil, ''Average PC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julian calendar

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Julian calendar. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

About {{old prod full}}

According to Misplaced Pages:Proposed_deletion#Nominating, the template can be inserted at nomination time, and not just at objection time. --bala 20:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Balabiot: Hi. I didn't know that. I am sorry. Still, I believe my revert was justified by the fact that you didn't insert the template; rather, you substituted it. I am sure that is improper. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—September and October 2014

TemplateData is a separate program that organizes information about the parameters that can be used in a template. VisualEditor reads that data, and uses it to populate its simplified template dialogs.

With the new TemplateData editor, it is easier to add information about parameters, because the ones you need to use are pre-loaded.

See the help page for TemplateData for more information about adding TemplateData. The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing team has reduced technical debt, simplified some workflows for template and citation editing, made major progress on Internet Explorer support, and fixed over 125 bugs and requests. Several performance improvements were made, especially to the system around re-using references and reference lists. Weekly updates are posted on Mediawiki.org.

There were three issues that required urgent fixes: a deployment error that meant that many buttons didn't work correctly (bugs 69856 and 69864), a problem with edit conflicts that left the editor with nowhere to go (bug 69150), and a problem in Internet Explorer 11 that caused replaced some categories with a link to the system message, MediaWiki:Badtitletext (bug 70894) when you saved. The developers apologize for the disruption, and thank the people who reported these problems quickly.

Increased support for devices and browsers

Internet Explorer 10 and 11 users now have access to VisualEditor. This means that about 5% of Wikimedia's users will now get an "Edit" tab alongside the existing "Edit source" tab. Support for Internet Explorer 9 is planned for the future.

Tablet users browsing the site's mobile mode now have the option of using a mobile-specific form of VisualEditor. More editing tools, and availability of VisualEditor on smartphones, is planned for the future. The mobile version of VisualEditor was tweaked to show the context menu for citations instead of basic references (bug 68897). A bug that broke the editor in iOS was corrected and released early (bug 68949). For mobile tablet users, three bugs related to scrolling were fixed (bug 66697, bug 68828, bug 69630). You can use VisualEditor on the mobile version of Misplaced Pages from your tablet by clicking on the cog in the top-right when editing a page and choosing which editor to use.

TemplateData editor

A tool for editing TemplateData will be deployed to more Wikipedias soon.  Other Wikipedias and some other projects may receive access next month. This tool makes it easier to add TemplateData to the template's documentation.  When the tool is enabled, it will add a button above every editing window for a template (including documentation subpages). To use it, edit the template or a subpage, and then click the "Edit template data" button at the top.  Read the help page for TemplateData. You can test the TemplateData editor in a sandbox at Mediawiki.org. Remember that TemplateData should be placed either on a documentation subpage or on the template page itself. Only one block of TemplateData will be used per template.

Other changes

Several interface messages and labels were changed to be simpler, clearer, or shorter, based on feedback from translators and editors. The formatting of dialogs was changed, and more changes to the appearance will be coming soon, when VisualEditor implements the new MediaWiki theme from Design. (A preview of the theme is available on Labs for developers.) The team also made some improvements for users of the Monobook skin that improved the size of text in toolbars and fixed selections that overlapped menus.

VisualEditor-MediaWiki now supplies the mw-redirect or mw-disambig class on links to redirects and disambiguation pages, so that user gadgets that colour in these in types of links can be created.

Templates' fields can be marked as 'required' in TemplateData. If a parameter is marked as required, then you cannot delete that field when you add a new template or edit an existing one (bug 60358). 

Language support improved by making annotations use bi-directional isolation (so they display correctly with cursoring behaviour as expected) and by fixing a bug that crashed VisualEditor when trying to edit a page with a dir attribute but no lang set (bug 69955).

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, perhaps in late October.

The team is also working on support for adding rows and columns to tables, and early work for this may appear within the month. Please comment on the design at Mediawiki.org.

In the future, real-time collaborative editing may be possible in VisualEditor. Some early preparatory work for this was recently done.

Supporting your wiki

At Wikimania, several developers gave presentations about VisualEditor. A translation sprint focused on improving access to VisualEditor was supported by many people. Deryck Chan was the top translator. Special honors also go to संजीव कुमार (Sanjeev Kumar), Robby, Takot, Bachounda, Bjankuloski06 and Ата. A summary of the work achieved by the translation community has been posted here. Thank you all for your work.

VisualEditor can be made available to most non-Misplaced Pages projects. If your community would like to test VisualEditor, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.

Please join the office hours on Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 18:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas; evening for Africa and Europe) and on Wednesday, 19 November at 16:00 UTC on IRC.

Give feedback on VisualEditor at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Meta. To help with translations, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact Elitre at Meta. Thank you!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

primary sources reversion

It probably would have been better to remove the redundant template than revert the edit; reversion discards all edits, not just the one you objected to. Also, note that there's no consensus on where the "primary sources" template should be placed. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: Hi. What "revert" are you talking about? I deleted the template and put "Many" back. (And I don't insist on it.) Where is the "revert"? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard O'Dwyer

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Richard O'Dwyer. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request temporary ban of User:Codename Lisa for acting in bad faith. Thank you.

The previous editor, Ronggy, did not warn you about this. Apologies – Epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"Siding with a person who uses one of the seven dirty words is simply inexcusable."

Hi, re this, the comment, "...siding with a person who uses one of the seven dirty words is simply inexcusable" is bizarre to me for a number of reasons, the least of which is that it is 2014 and social mores have changed since 1920. More importantly though, my watchlist was polluted by the petulant, passive-aggressive zinger directed at AussieLegend, and it required unambiguous resistance the same way I'd call out "hey, (Redacted) cut it out!" if I saw someone harassing a person on the subway. I stand by the sharpness of my comment, and George Carlin would agree with me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Cyphoidbomb

I am going to be very frank with you: You grossly insulted someone, breaking both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (which are fundamental policies), subverted a discussion towards an impasse instead of toward a compromise and did so not once but trice in the same discussion. Now you defend yourself by saying "social mores have changed"? Very feeble.

Let's put it this way: As long as your comments are disruptive instead of constructive, I don't care whether you use seven filthy words or seven heavenly words. And if your social mores, which have turned towards the worse since 1920, prevents you from being constructive in Misplaced Pages, make peace with them.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)