User talk:Dolot3

February 2015
Hello, I'm Codename Lisa. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Internet Explorer 10 without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Codename Lisa (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies for not noting the reason why. It was because those links do not refer to IE 10, but rather IE 11, so I figured they were not relevant anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolot3 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 3 February 2015‎ (UTC)


 * Hi. Actually, the links are correct. Microsoft has implemented a browser and OS detection in them. They may show contextually different contents. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If the link shows different info depending upon context, then it might be better to find a link that it static and will always show info on IE10, since that is what the wiki page is addressing. I know in my experience that it doesn't matter if I use IE10 or IE11 as my browser, I still get a page that talks about IE11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolot3 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No. First, you should sign your messages. Second, if you found such a static page, that would be nice but official website links get special reprieve. They get listed anyway. Third, since you look new around here, I think I should let you know: We never ever delete dead links that are used as a source. We revive them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your tone seems angry - have I offended you in any way? Dolot3 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No, dear. I am not angry. We're good. { But if you have a clear opinion of what made you think I was angry, perhaps I can avoid it the next time?
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind response. Perhaps angry wasn't the best term - I think curt would describe it more correctly.  As far as what gave me that impression... hmmm... hard one to spell out.  I guess it starts with the abrupt 'No', which I'm not exactly clear what that's referring to, followed immediately by the admonition to sign my posts.  The second point was not too bad.  In the third point, I think it was the phrase "since you look new around here, I think I should let you know:" that struck me as slightly condescending.


 * Admittedly, with writing it's hard to know for sure what the other is trying to convey, and what one person may find offensive another may not think anything of.


 * I guess I would have said something like this: "I understand what you're saying.  When the page was originally created, probably that link did point to a page about IE 10, but in any case, we'll give it a pass because it's an official website link and those get special reprieve.  If you can find a static page with the right info, then that would be great, because as a matter of policy, we never delete dead links that are used as a source, but rather seek to revive them (be nice to have a link to the policy here).  Lastly, be sure to sign your messages.  This is just good Wikipedia etiquette - it helps us know want to be a part of the community and are not a troll. {"


 * Something like that, maybe?
 * Dolot3 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)