Reisio

Suppose.

Serval range map

I’ve uploaded a redrawn version at File:Serval_range.svg; let me know if you think it needs any revisions before I call it Done and substitute it for the one in the article.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Reisio. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical)#Another bug?.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another reply

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical)'s talk page. (Sorry for the second notification, but it sounded like maybe you weren't going to check that talk page anymore.) - dcljr (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Screenshot of Firefox

Hello, Reisio

Your persistence to remove the name of the operating system from Firefox caption surprises me: While there is an entire discussion dedicated to choosing between the screenshots from different platforms, you claim that they are all similar? Well, I am sorry, your claim does not seem to have community consensus. Everyone participating in that discussion seems to think they are different.

In addition, what is the harm of a little more detail? In fact I think the name of the OS should be mentioned even if there is absolutely no difference between the screenshots of the same software program in different OSes because there is no telling what happens in the future.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If the discussion is on which screenshot to use and not on whether or not to mention which OS the screenshot originated from at all, then it’s not relevant to my actions. I claim they’re similar because they are; it’s not a matter of opinion, the parts of the screenshot relevant to the article are demonstrably the same regardless of what OS the screenshot came from. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

You claim that they are similar, then a discussion that prove the contrary is perfectly appropriate. Nevertheless, an article must answer all essential questions on the subject, including "if it is Firefox, why doesn't it look like what I have on my computer?" instead of denying them with an offensive attitude. So, if you met someone in person who punched you when you told him this screenshot is that of Firefox and called you a liar, don't be surprised.

For now, I drop the matter.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussions are usually appropriate when two people aren’t in agreement, and we’ve just had one (two if you count the edit summaries). If a person has Firefox on their computer, they already know what it looks like; and while, again, all relevant properties of what the screenshots depict will look the same, additional information relevant to the image (but not the article) are always (or at least frequently) available by clicking on it (something which the end user clearly has the capacity to do). Text doesn’t have attitude, it’s just pixels making up glyphs, but I appreciate your warning and if it gives you peace of mind, rest assured the actions of humans have little surprise left in them for me. ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Result of discussion: Firefox Proposal

I have just closed the unofficial request for change I started in proxy for you, as consensus was reached not to enforce your suggested change. If you should wish to contest this conclusion, you may open an official request for change here and invite other editors from relevant wikiprojects. You may also open a discussion at a wikiproject talk page if you feel your change should be adopted on a project-wide basis. If you you choose to take action to contest our conclusion, I would suggest asking for other peoples' opinions at Wikipedia:Software screenshots, and at Wikiproject Software. drewmunn (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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 are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:PS/2 connector#.22...almost_all_desktop_computers_still_have_PS.2F2_ports.....22".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 05:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Hi! I am Amdscientist, a volunteer at the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We are just waiting for your opening comments before we can begin the DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC) ANI notice Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Appalling POV merging by Emmette Hernandez Coleman of Flag of WS/Flag of the SADR. Thank you. —Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC) No personal attacks Hello, Reisio. You have new messages at El duderino's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2013_February_19. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I've already asked you twice to let it drop, then removed your personal attack twice. If you restore it again I will seek admin action. El duderino (abides) 01:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Move? There's a discussion you might be interested in at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Move?. I'm telling you this because you were involved in Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara#Merger proposal and/or Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara#UNMERGING_ARTICLES. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (File:Clojure-icon.png) Thanks for uploading File:Clojure-icon.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 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) 04:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC) That wasn't very nice [1] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Like email harvesting? :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC) YOu know perfectly well how to post at someone's talk. Use talkback or the like. Posting my signature like that gives the appearance that I started that thread at my talk and you replied. Looking at your history, I suggest that you make edits that are in better form. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC) If you’d actually looked at my history (not that I blame you for not doing so, it’d be tedious), you’d know that this is how I’ve managed Wikipedia user talk page discussions for twelve years. Guess I’m not up on what more recent users are using, but nor do I feel I need to be; wikis historically don’t really lend themselves to this type of discussion well. You initiated a conversation with me, I’m sorry if my response wasn’t exactly what you wanted. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Smartphones with no specified provider Hi Reisio, I responded to you in the thread on the Computing refdesk. I'm not being argumentative — if it's possible to do what you say I'd genuinely be grateful to know how. Can you point me to anything on how to buy a smartphone without a specified provider? I'm in the US in case it matters. --Trovatore (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC) This Is What I Am Doing I have a wikidoc E-mail address of the guy. And I know the guys name. I tried a reverse E-mail check. ON something like E-mail finder. I was only able to undercover the town of the person with the E-mail account. Not the state. I can possiablely look is other E-mail account up. By paying with a credit or debit card. Its legal I am not breaking the law. I am asking would there be a free way to do it. A reverse E-mail look up there a many sites that do it. But they all charge. Could I do it for free some how. Without breaking the law. Look through reverse E-mail on Yahoo or google. If you want to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.186.165 (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC) I have raised this matter at WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC) If he wanted to be communicated with, he would probably make his email address known. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Ah, the irony of it all. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC) EM Space This is just my curiosity, but why are you using EM-SPACE (%E2%80%83)? It looks incredibly strange when reading Wikipedia/the Refdesk, even more-so than the non-breaking space (U+00A0) when trying to force doublespacing after a period. Again, just my curiosity. Thanks! -- 143.85.199.242 (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Em spaces are what “doublespacing” is meant to emulate. Briefly, I am not a fan of the simplest traditions being butchered despite the technological era we occupy. I prefer separating sentences with em spaces both for traditional reasons (because we did, and if people who cared about conventions existed/made typewriters then, would probably all still), as well as functional reasons (like the original reason [to more easily distinguish between sentence starts and ends] and even new [programmatic distinction]). I also try to use real apostrophes and real quotation marks, and as soon as I get around to it, dollar signs with two vertical lines instead of just one (I s’pose specifying a particular popular font face that used two would suffice). ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC) May 2013 Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at HTML element. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page. If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. You're simply wrong here. <br> is a hard return: a return that is fixed in place by the use of the markup. <p> may imply "soft" returns, but these are soft as they might move around, depending on line length. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Did you just email me? To save some fuckwit admin blocking me at WP:ANEW I've just reverted myself. However I do not appreciate abusive emails. If this was from you, I will be seeking a block for harassment. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Probably Wikipedia’s automated talk page modification emails; just a guess. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC) No, this wasn't automated. Far from it. Now as to your confusion between hard and soft returns – is this because you're using WP articles as a source?! You know that (by every good reason possible) they aren't usable as sources, right? Especially not when they're crappy, unreferenced sub-stubs as hard return and soft return are. Please find a real source to explain to you what the difference is. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC) That assertion might well matter, except for this: I can say the exact same thing to you—you haven’t a source, either. So far everything you’ve said to me I could (and basically have) said right back to you. Think about it, and maybe come up with something I can’t justify to you in the exact same manner as you have justified to me. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC) JFGI: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/H/hard_return.html, just from the first non-WP link As you consider WP authoritative, Word wrap "A soft return is the break resulting from line wrap or word wrap, whereas a hard return is an intentional break" Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC) WFM, although it’s the article you would need to add it to, not my talk page. FWIW, my reaction to your stance that everyone needs to prove something to you and you need to prove nothing to anyone does not mean I consider WP authoritative, it just means I think the rules apply to everyone. :) I do appreciate all the insults, though; more amusing than usual. :D ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Hard return. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A dubious, inaccurate article with no sources that has been labelled as such for several years is hardly "drive-by tagging". It would be much more useful to address this problem than to start replicating its errors into other articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC) If it isn’t fixed in five years and four months, the template is obviously not doing anything useful. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Edit warring Edit warring on I Your recent editing history at I shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Thomas.W (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC) ANI-notice Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thomas.W (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Reverts on Basic Latin alphabet and A, B, C, etc. Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Basic Latin alphabet, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". WP:MINOR, which you cited as rationale for marking your edits as minor, says that "Adding or removing content in an article" is not minor, and "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances". You did both these things by repeatedly clearing this page. LjL (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Warning Hi, please desist from edit warring on articles to do with letters of the alphabet. Engage in discussion with other editors. And do not mark edits that change content as minor (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). If you cannot do this, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Regards, --RA (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Reisio, as mentioned a few subsections above, please read WP:BRD. To put it simply: you were bold in your removal of "ISO", you were reverted, it is now up to you to discuss and defend your action, and gain consensus to your opinion. I would suggest taking this to Talk:ISO basic Latin alphabet, where User:LjL has already begun a somewhat related discussion. Do not continue to unilaterally make these same edits. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Invitation to a Wicnic in Gainesville on Saturday, June 22nd Greetings! Seeing that you've edited the article on Gainesville on Wikipedia, I'm inviting to the North Central Florida 2013 Great American Wiknic that will be on Saturday June 22, 2013, commencing at 1:00 pm, ten blocks north of UF campus in Gainesville,. If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL. Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC) June 2013 Your recent editing history at Crouton shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Sure thing. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Your recent editing history at List of unsolved problems in mathematics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Thomas.W (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC) This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thomas.W (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC) You’ll forgive me, I hope, if I don’t take particularly seriously the threats of someone who considers simple responses to talk pages as vandalism. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)