Hi there! We see that you're an active contributor for GoodSync. Would you be interested in helping create an article for our other more well known product, RoboForm Password Manager? SoftwareGirl (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)SoftwareGirlReply[reply]

So, a while back you said some words against AussieLegend that I found to be objectionable, because they showed up suddenly in my watchlist, I thought them mean-spirited, passive-aggressive, and a variety of other this-and-thats that are probably no longer relevant. I felt strongly against your words in the moment and wanted to clearly send a message that as a fellow editor I didn't care for that sort of attack against another editor. It was not my intention to demean you as a person or to demean your contributions, so if you interpreted it as such, that was a failure on my part. That said, I would like it if we could move past these superficialities and get back to normal civil discourse without any lingering prejudices, because vandals are our usual enemies, and we treat them with far more civility than they deserve. Both you and Aussie have contributed tons, so as a show of good faith, and with the hope that whatever existing fires can be quenched, I apologize to you for my irritated and sharp comments. Respectfully, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the editing of "Usage share" section of "Microsoft Windows" article. Now the table looks more neat. All the best. Nicolas Love (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are welcome. Fleet Command (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't this section have a link to Microsoft Windows#Usage share? .. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not mandatory at all. Fleet Command (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...in my edit summary just now. I'm dealing with one of those bull-in-china-shop types somewhere else just at the moment. EEng (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello FleetCommand:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Codename Lisa (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding ((subst:Happy Halloween)) to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks very much for the kitten and your kind words! Cloudbound (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wishing you a merry Christmas and a happy new year... Codename Lisa (talk)

Happy New Year!

FleetCommand,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

Hi FleetCommand, thank you for your comments at my RfA, even if they weren't the...nicest...to read. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words. Cheers, ansh666 00:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Ansh666. Thanks for this olive branch. I can certainly appreciate your act of extending it. The first five admins that I met were not so nice. (Two of them got the ArbCom's worst side of judgment much later on and one of them has not been contributing for seven years.)

Perhaps you benefit from knowing this: My first experience of nominating an image for deletion was a screenshot of Windows Media Player that had an album art in it. In the lengthy discussion that ensued, I naively explained why I thought it is not in the spirit of copyright to have this image, in my own childish language. (Nine years ago!) The image as kept. When I nominated it for the second time, I was much more knowledgeable about Wikipedia. I only mentioned WP:NFCC#3; the image was speedy deleted and no one made the slightest sound. I still think the first time, the attending admin must have known NFCC by heart and deleted the image, teaching me the correct language in process. Perhaps I don't expect to see you in image deletion area, but I expect this level of competence from all admins nonetheless. Mustn't I?

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course. Me at least - if there's something I don't know, I try my best to avoid it until I take the time to read and understand everything I can, whatever it is. Thanks for the explanation, and I hope I don't end up like those first admins. Cheers, ansh666

I have removed the ((proposed deletion/dated)) tag from Imaging for Windows, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add ((proposed deletion)) back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Pavlor (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, FleetCommand. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi.

I was wondering if you could help me make sense of a situation that is turning into edit warring.

Lkingscott has added a hatnote leading to Telegram (disambiguation) at the top of Telegram (messaging service) article, despite my objection and referring him to WP:NAMB. His justification is this:

I read the hatnote policy "A hatnote may be appropriate in an unambiguously named article when an ambiguous term redirects to it" Try Googling Telegram, it gets to this article. There is no disambiguation to get me to Telegram

Does it make sense to you?

The full quotation is:

A hatnote may be appropriate in an unambiguously named article when an ambiguous term redirects to it, as explained in the "Proper uses" section above.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fancy seeing you here, CL.

Let's take it to the article talk page, shall we?

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, sorry, I did read the Hatnoteand my understanding was that a hatnote was appropriate. The reversions were made anonymously, so I did not know with whom to discuss the matter. I will refrain from doing this further, but as a wiki user, it infuriates me when I'm trying to find a particular article and I come to such articles as this with no disambiguation hatnote to quickly navigate to my intended destination. I therefore disagree with Wiki policy in this matter, but I will not continue to argue the matter.

I.e. as mentioned, when I search Google for Telegram, this article is the top hit. The article on telegram / trlegraph is way down the hit list. This often happens. Disambiguation hatnotes are really useful to get quickly to my desired article. Lkingscott (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weinstein effect but its talk page does not have a ((Article history)) or ((Old AfD full)) template. You can use WP:XFDcloser to process such closures automatically in the future. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 15:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, regarding Darwin (operating system).... you're welcome to nominate the dozens of articles we have in Category:Software version histories for deletion if you have suddenly decided that community consensus needs to change on whether or not we're going to allow tables of release information. It's sort of a weird stance to take; WP:NOTCHANGELOG has long been interpreted to mean that Wikipedia shouldn't be the primary source for change information about software, i.e. a software company hosting their change log on Wikipedia, not that such things aren't allowed. If a "version history" section of an article is missing sources, it's appropriate to slap a ((refimprove)) on it, but removing it entirely isn't helpful. BTW this came up on the village pump a few years ago: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_123#Are_software_changelogs_acceptable? Warren -talk- 05:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Warren: Hey. Okay, I hate all kinds of WP:OSE-type arguments. I saw a problem; I fixed it. I am not obliged to spend my precious time fixing others. Also, putting a ((Refimprove)) tag is a privilege, not a right. I will extend this privilege to contents that have particularly excellent quality. Finally, two things that you seem to have ignored outright:

Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included.

— WP:NOTCHANGELOG

And two rather opposing views in the discussion to which you sent me, both of which do not agree with what I removed:

I agree with WP:NOTCHANGELOG as it stands now. The reason why we ask for secondary sourcing is not because the primary source is unreliable, but because not every little bugfix is notable. If an article in a notable magazine mentions that Frobozz3D finally got the shader that everyone's been waiting for, then maybe it's worth including— in prose, of course, not in an unstructured list. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is good, and that means we don't exhaustively list changes in software in the style of a changelog. That has nothing to do with what types of sources are used to support statements in an article. So my !vote would be to kill the proscription of source types in favor of stating the real guideline: We discuss changes that are relevant to the topic, we don't list every one. That means we'll probably want to be including analysis that isn't going to be in the changelog to be cited, but we could still validly cite the changelog for e.g. a sentence about what the change actually was or the specific date or version in which it was made. Anomie⚔ 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, before hitting the revert button, it wouldn't hurt (and is actually encouraged) to read the kind of crap you are restoring.

And for the love of God, start these kinds of discussion in the article talk page. I am sick and tired of the accusations of cabal activity that follows up when I have a discussion in my user page. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't ignore any of that. I'm pointing you to the discussion so you could get up to speed on a previous discussion of the matter. Wikipedia has supported dozens of pages with software version histories -- I can get you revs going back 13+ years to demonstrate this -- so the onus is on you to justify the sudden desire to change this. If you want to demonstrate consistency in your beliefs, then try nominating, oh, let's say MediaWiki version history for deletion at WP:AFD -- because that article is literally nothing more than precisely the sort of information you've suddenly decided no longer belongs on the encyclopedia. Man, that'd be a hoot. Warren -talk- 06:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From where I am standing, I have justified myself by giving a core policy and your disputing it with nothing particular. (Actually, I have a feeling you are mere here to act like a jerk.) Also, WP:BURDEN says the onus is very much on you. Finally, I said take it to the article talk page. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure what you meant by "The "released" field accepts a date only. And there is more to this field than just reflecting what you write in a table in the article."

I understand that the field only accepts date. What did you mean by "And there is more to this field than just reflecting what you write in a table in the article."? Gotitbro (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey. :)

You should only enter a date and <ref>...</ref> in |released=. Sure, on the desktop version of Wikipedia, it renders anything, even arbitrary letters, but there are a lot of software web services that consume Wikipedia contents. One of them is the WikiData bot that imports those dates to WikiData. And let's not forget how confusing a version number is to a layman, especially, when it doesn't start with 1.0. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making repeated threats to stalk me in the future User_talk:Andy_Dingley#My_new_project and unsigned but obvious here: Talk:Criticism_of_Windows_10#Problems_with_Windows_10 are going to see you at ANI in short order. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andy Dingley: "In the future"? I am doing it. And it is not a threat, since it cannot hurt you. I have no intention of committing WP:HOUND. It is just benign stalking.

As for the sig., I think you and I both know that I by mistake entered five tides instead of four; a common typo. Also, both of us know about page histories and other whatnot, so we do not deliberately resort to such a childish thing as not signing in the capacity of a harassment tactic. Couple it with the fact I wrote things in that message that wouldn't make sense unless I introduced myself. So, you are insulting your own intelligence. (Not that I am complaining.)

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 14:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem inexplicably confident that this behavior won't lead to a block if it is brought up at ANI. I think you're quite mistaken; I considered blocking you indefinitely right now, and while I decided against it, I wouldn't be surprised if another admin does so. I certainly will if it happens once more. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Floquenbeam: You considered indefinitely blocking me for watching him and occasionally helping him? I wonder what stopped you. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 19:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Until you clearly indicate that you will not harass other editors. Your bragging about harassing Andy Dingley is beyond the pale. If I'm not around, any admin can unblock after an agreement to stop. While I don't believe admins should have veto power over a block - so I will not demand consensus at ANI or anything before any admin unblocks if they clearly think an unblock is correct - for what it's worth, I would oppose an unblock if FleetCommand does not agree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any decision to un-block this user should take into account that they were recently banned from participating in MOS discussions for a variety of civility-related reasons, and they have a multi-year history of ANI incidents. This is also their third block in eight month, and an abatement of the kinds of behaviours described in WP:NOTHERE has not been forthcoming. A discussion on WP:ANI should be required before unblocking. Warren -talk- 23:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Warren. Have you ever heard the expression "pot calling the kettle black"? (Here, we just call it WP:BOOMERANG.) Well, you harassed me in my talk page by posting an insulting joke and then edit warred over it when I removed it insisting that it is an attempt at "levity". Since then, you persistently treated me with hostility. ([1], [2]).

These are exactly the kind of things that FleetCommand did.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FleetCommand (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The reason that admin Floquenbeam has given in the blocking log is "Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy".

These two are exactly what I was careful not to do. I notified Andy Dingly that will be monitoring his contribution log (for transparency) and started doing so. (I had cause to do so. For a year now, Andy have been resorting to cast aspersions that I and another editor are canvassing, without providing any evidence. I suspected that he is try to hide something behind this accusation and I was right.) However, contrary to what the harassment policy says, I did not revert any of Andy's edits or even edited where Andy edits; I even helped him once in a certain talk page. Perhaps the worst thing I did was having a chat with Andy when I discovered he had resumed a certain bad editing pattern, something that Floquenbeam ignored completely. In fact, my contribution log has only eight entries since I started.

As for the "continuing to do so after a very clear warning". There was no clear warning; since March 2016, Floquenbeam had been threatening me with a permanent block with various excuses. A clear warning must have a mention of the policy and its clause. Flo's warning has been as vague as always.

Decline reason:

The block for blatant harassment was completely justified, and the unblock request reinforces rather than negates the need for the block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello, everyone

An indefinite block is like a divorce: When it comes, it is totally unjustifiable and yet it had been a long time in coming. I knew for a fact that FleetCommand would be indefinitely blocked soon, because of the manner he received the community ban: He was served a warning asking him not to continue, and despite the fact that he didn't continue, he received the ban anyway.

So, please do not lift the block; I believe good things will happen for FleetCommand, if he moves on from this place. But I emphasize that this block is not legitimate. It is not okay to block someone just because he or she is watching someone else, especially by an admin that has prior prejudice. Also, according to the blocking policy, a block must be preventative. This one isn't: Watching someone doesn't need a user account; a block only makes watching opaque. Finally, I have seen harassment a lot. I am constantly under attack by former Wikipedian who now appears from time to time and deliberately reverts my contributions. Believe me, User:Andy Dingly was not harassed.

Just for the record: In the five years that I have been here, I didn't see anyone whom FleetCommand treated fairly. I also didn't see anyone who treated FleetCommand fairly. Cause and effect as they might be, they don't justify one another.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

o.O You too, Codename Lisa?

Does anyone here care that all I did was trying to clear my name? And that it was I who was being harassed?

All those cases that Warren is showing aren't precedents; they are the cause and what I did was the effect.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Codename Lisa:”I am constantly under attack by former Wikipedian...” Former Wikipedian? What makes you so sure I ever was a Wikipedian? Maybe, I would have become one, but not after witnessing the tenacious incivility of editors like you and FleetCommand coupled with administrators being unwilling to enforce policy for one of the so called five pillars. However, Floq’s block of FC is a welcomed and overdue improvement. 2600:1005:B04F:67E9:E8AA:62B8:175:442D (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of any of your comments above is helpful or appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Just out of curiosity, are you talking to FleetCommand, the block-evading wikihound or me? —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All three of you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeing as how you didn't lift the block, I must say my comment must have been very helpful. As for the wikihound's comment, you simply have no idea how helpful it was. I can assure you: Very helpful. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FleetCommand (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am going to make it very easy to understand. I did nothing this time.

I am not saying I did nothing wrong. I am saying I did nothing, right or wrong. The blocking admin assumed bad faith in me. That's all.

Decline reason:

You recent edits are very clearly harassment, and the block is fully justified. I Do not understand how you can fail to accept this; you will need to understand and state so and undertake to desist from your harassment before you could expect an unblock.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The reviewing admin just needs to look at FC's contribs starting with this on 12/27. All contribs since then (except one where he's fixing his signature, and a couple where he's inexplicably pinging me to make sure I see the harassment), until he was blocked, have been harassing Andy. Clear warning is still visible on this talk page in section above: I said I would block indefinitely if it continued on 12/28. It continued on 12/31: [3]. So I blocked indefinitely until FC clearly agrees to stop this.

Also note: FC has said I have been threatening to block him with various excuses since March 2016. He'll have to provide pointers to these interaction since March 2016, as it isn't in his talk page history, and I don't recall them. I actually wasted 10 minutes of my life looking thru my contribs from March 2016, and can't find any such interactions. The only previous interaction I recall where I threatened to block him is this past September, when he said he would celebrate when another editor died. I did not block for this, I issued a stern warning. If I had actually been looking for an excuse to block FC for the last 1.5 years, that would have been my chance; no one would have criticized me if I'd blocked instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FleetCommand (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Very well. I read all the above. And I am a smart person too. So, acknowledging all bove, I am making one final appeal with the following deal: Unblock me now, and if within 48 hours, I did not do what absolutely ascertains every admin on this planet beyond all reasonable doubts that they will never ever (I repeat: never ever) have any problem whatsoever with me, any admin is free to not only block me after the 48 hours, but also revoke my talk page access.

Please note that while I am known to be impulsive and, to use a certain respected user's words, an asshole, I have never been a liar. And what I am going to tell you is the truth: I never intended to harass Andy. I thought if I follow him around and help him, he will see the true me, cease his hostility and assumption of bad faith. Hell, our initial dispute started when I tried to help him. He assumed bad faith in me instead, interpreting my literal comments as sarcastic. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

If you can do within 48 hours what absolutely ascertains every admin on this planet beyond reasonable doubt that they will never ever have any problem whatsoever with you, you can just as well tell us now what you have planned. Huon (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(e/c with decline, so revised slightly) Just in case you value input from me: I really suggest you not file another unblock request, until you've taken a little time to reflect, and do another one in a day or two. For example, "...I did not do what absolutely ascertains every admin on this planet beyond all reasonable doubts that they will never ever (I repeat: never ever) have any problem whatsoever with me..." does not make any sense. Not in a nitpicky way, but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. As another example, you are clearly not being accurate in describing your motivations for following Andy's edits. You have already specifically said you were going to try to find things he does wrong. You can't shove that toothpaste back into the tube, and pretend you were trying to be friendly all along, blaming Andy (and by extension me and Brad and Anthony and Huon) for just mistakenly assuming bad faith. Repeatedly declined unblock requests lead to talk page access removal, and I really think you want to take more time with the fourth one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:100rectoSilver.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:100versoSilver.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When Windows 10 for Workstations edition came out, I added a column listing it's main differences with the other editions. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_10_editions&oldid=807585080 I did not fill in what I did not have a reference for, and I asked for others to fill in rest. You reverted my change saying "Very poor quality, no source". I un-reverted pointing out my edits had references. You reverted again saying it was vandalism minus the bad faith. I gave up. Almost a year later, there is still no information on this edition. I came here to ask you to help but you are currently blocked. I hope that when you get unblocked you help put that back in the article.ARosa (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Split media - processed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Netop logo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Microsoft Security Essentials Genuine Notification.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Windows 7 Resource Monitor.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:QuickTime 7 Icon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Windows Photo Viewer in Windows 7.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/Opera Mini has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]