Archives
Archive 1 — January / February 2006 Archive 2 — March / April 2006 Archive 3 — May / June 2006 Archive 4 — July / Aug / Sep 2006 Archive 5 — Oct / Nov 2006

My understanding is that, whatever the wording, the purpose of putting the template there in notoriously spam-prone articles is to alert readers and editors to watch out for it and remove it. Daniel Case 06:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Update is not the same as Windows Update, nor is it a sequel for. Can you please branch the two articles?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeremy.Visser (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for your comments and your last words of advice. I ought to confide in you that usually when I slap a tag on an article I know the metapidians there will be alarmed, but in my view lead paragraphs are getting out of control here on the whole. Very often I don't know enough about the subject to wikify it and am simply prodding the bear out of hibernation kind of thing, not vilifying it. Some editors see no problem with their long intros like you with microsoft, which is OK in this case, but I would say most long intros are not, conformity to WP:LEAD is ignored totally. In fact the WP:LEAD page has very little participance for a guideline page. I encourege you to join our new wikiproject [1] to keep keep an eye on us, we will make mistakes too. Thanks again. FrummerThanThou 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "If you're going to take it upon yourself to do something like this, then at least have the courtesy to come up with a reasoning that's actually true. Your work with identifying copyvio images has been very helpful, but please be more careful."

When I removed the image from that page, there was not a detailed fair-use rationale for the image's use on History of Microsoft Windows. This may be the case now, I have not checked. --Yamla 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new discussion about this template on its talk page. As an active contributor to this page, I would ask that you please join in. Thanks a lot, and I look forward to starting to discuss this template with you. --W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 01:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...an official-sounding policy-type thing like "Wikipedia is not for something you invented in a forum one day" -- like you said on AFD. Actually we do, it's called WP:NFT. >Radiant< 17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have u deleted my earmaster subpage?
I didn't get banned. By the way if you believed that, well you ought to have delete all my subpages as well. -- Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipediawanna Talk? 05:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting fair-use images on user-space articles is specifically disallowed by Wikipedia policy. Also, your block history shows that you were blocked indefinitely at the time of my deleting those pages. -/- Warren 05:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I revert your edit of the article back to me, because my edit is not a bully vandalism. I'm just adding the unsigned visual style screenshot in Windows XP. I, not a user vandal, I contribute some Windows-related articles and Kids Next Door-related articles. I hope you enjoy editing in Wikipedia -- also, feel free to comment to me. — Jigs41793 ^Talk 10:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I protected both versions with a pointer to deletion review if anyone wants to reverse the deletions. Vegaswikian

Hi, WP:LEAD is a WP policy, please see the template on the WP:LEAD page, stating This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia. Cheers. frummer 15:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines aren't policies. If you're not clear about the difference, read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and have a look at Wikipedia:List of policies and you'll notice that nothing about lead sections, or indeed any part of the manual of style, is listed as official Wikipedia policy. -/- Warren 18:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I've rephrased the message. Cheers. frummer 20:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the contributor has vandalised some articles in the past, and the screenshot is obviously KND related, but it is also a valid demonstration of the UXTHEME.dll patch to change the Windows interface, and it demonstrates how this can be done with a Vista Basic lookalike skin for XP. Until someone else supplies a screenshot of the same thing without the KND reference, it should stay - it's still related. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you have proof those IP vandals are the same person? Checkuser-type proof? Blimey, a real crusade... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the term a crusade rather than The Crusades. As in, "of being a righteous campaign, usually to "root out evil", or to fight for a just cause". I do agree with the sentiment, but I thought the initial action was a bit ruthless. I'll be on my way then. Good luck, soldier! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was no problem at all. I have reverted many user pages in the past. It is one of the things I focus on in recent changes patrol. Have a nice week. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 13:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if it should be "1991 to 1996". Gates still mentions Cairo in his talk at the 1996 PDC[2] albeit very briefly, Microsoft still talks about Cairo in its 1996 press releases[3][4] and various other sources are still talking about Cairo in 1996.[5][6] I'm not really aware of any source that says when the Cairo teams at Microsoft really broke up or moved to other projects though, so I'm wondering if you have better sources than me. AlistairMcMillan 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the copyright info on Image:Aat_sample.JPG. I haven't done much with images and am never sure of what licensing to choose :) --Bookgrrl ^holler/looksee 23:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the template you said was deleted, and it said "Use The Raven's Apprentice userbox instead" (or something like that). I checked the userboxes he/she had, and I didn't know that he/she had a Windows XP box. Sorry! HyperSonicBoom 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does "db-repost" mean anyway? HyperSonicBoom 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've had our squabbles over Category:Windows, but it would seem we're on the same page here. Please check out WP:∫ sometime, to bring order to Wikipedia. Cwolfsheep 05:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you had any interest in being an administrator on the English Wikipedia. If so let me know and I'll fill out what's neessary and nominate you. Or if you don't want to be an admin let me know too so I don't waste your time. --Wizardman 06:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left wikipedia. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 01:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i know what you're talking about (this "my opinion" with MS windows and Mac OS) - but this thing about "copying" mac os is noted in Apple Computer too and I think it's important enough to be in Windows article. Or delete it from Apple Computer article too. --Running 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. -/- Warren 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness my life has calmed down. I am now back to editing Wikipedia. Take a look at my recent contributions to the Windows 2000 article. Hope you like them. Drop by my talk page and tell me what you think. Hope to hear from you soon. Jdlowery 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea to merge the Service Packs and Lifecycle sections of the Windows 2000 article is a good idea. Do you think that I should do this now, or put it up for discussion on the Windows 2000 talk page? Please respond on my talk page. I just wanted to be sure I am taking the right action. Thanks for your time.

Thank you for your support at Unused highway. The page now looks ungodly awful with all the sources, but it's what the pharaoh ordered :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've posted some answers to some common questions about Windows Home Server to the discussion thread on my Channel9 video http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=270965.

Please feel free to utilize these to expand the WHS article as you see fit.

Charlie Kindel General Manager, Windows Home Server

this. You folks were sniffing up the wrong tree. Best regards // FrankB 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment (And I will revert all your changes until you obtain the necessary consensus. Quit wasting your time with this bullshit.), please be more civil towards other editors, regardless of whether you agree with their edits. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.. I find that Shared source article seems to be inaccurate, misleading and bias. It would be great if you can help take a look at it. One issue for an example such as "none of the license programs allows for commercial use of modified code." Thanks --Jutiphan | Talk - 06:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say hi. I really like your butwhy article. Very interesting. I really feel a lot of wikipedia articles are not having neutral tones with many Microsoft-related articles and I have to say I feel less of the Wikipedia as a whole because of this. It is just frustrated to see how open-source minded people turned out to be so "closed" on it while on another hand Microsoft seems to be "more open" --Jutiphan | Talk - 06:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the kind words. I'm happy to have been a part in the ongoing march towards higher quality in the Windows-related articles (and OS X, to an extent), but there's still so much to be done! Don't let the state of some of the articles get you down... evenness of tone is an extremely difficult thing to accomplish, because almost everyone who comes to Wikipedia to edit has pre-programmed opinions that affect the tone of their contributions. One thing I've noticed, though, is that once a degree of evenness and quality is attained in an article, it becomes pretty resistant to attempts by zealots to subvert it into something ugly and POV-laden. We can accomplish this high quality across the whole spectrum of operating system articles, even if it takes a few more years. We're not in a big hurry. :-)

I'll have a look at Shared source sometime soon, but I really know very little of the details of Microsoft's shared source licenses. I'll have to do some research. -/- Warren 07:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I may just as well try to fix it myself --Jutiphan | Talk - 16:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple are paying people to write positive articles? AlistairMcMillan 04:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Windows Embedded CE 6.0 Logo.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage - I really appreciate it. I don't know why it's been the target of vandalism lately. —Remember the dot (t) 06:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]