Talk:Windows Media

Rewrite
I think this article deserves a general rewrite. Windows Media is a brand. It would make sense to describe its origins and history (born out of NetShow), and the components that comprise it. The current article is fairly inconsistent - it talks about playlists, HD Photo, DVR-MS, SAMI, etc. While many of these technologies are associated with Windows Media, none of them actually fall under the Windows Media brand. Furthermore, it seems incorrect to say WM is intended for Microsoft Windows when it's been supported on Mac OS, Zune, Xbox and other platforms over the years.

Here's what I would suggest as the WM component list:
 * Codecs
 * File format (ASF)
 * Network protocols (MMS, WMS HTTP, WMS RTSP)
 * SDKs and tools (e.g. WM Format SDK)
 * Encoder (e.g. WME9)
 * DRM (e.g. WM DRM 10)
 * Server (WMS)
 * Player (WMP)

General

 * No mention of Windows Media SDK?
 * did we forget to use our signature?--Dagibit 03:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Vulnerability

 * I was told that at-least wma was dead since its release because occasional files would download viruses instead of licence information. I my self have infected my computer from running wma files. Why is this not mentioned here?--Dagibit 03:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because this is an article on Windows Media and not the actual file format? Unless you meant windows media when you typed "wma".  If you want to whine about the wma format, do it on that article's talk page.--Younmm23 23:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WMF? Is this a joke?
I have deleted WMF from the list of formas because: Fleet Command (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was neither wikilinked nor sourced.
 * .WMF is the extension of Windows Metafile, a vector image type that can be opened by Windows XP and Adobe Illustrator as an image. Wikipedia Commons contains a number of such images.
 * Microsoft website does not confirm WMF as a specific media format. As a matter of fact it confirms Windows Metafile.
 * Wikipedia website does not confirm WMF as a specific media format. Windows Media Format redirects back this very same article!

"Windows Media Group: a open question to other editors
This Wiki is IMHO not complete or correct in that the term "Windows Media" was the group name, as mentioned above it is a BRAND. At Microsoft, that created the items listed here, but that aspect of the word "Windows Media" should also include the ORIGINAL use, (that was the foot note on many peoples pay check "Windows Media Group") and this should be noted here. As mentioned briefly in the Netshow page refs, the Windows media group evolved out of the Netshow program. I will source this as time allows, but I am posing the QUESTION for other editors, after the prior unproductive interactions in the closed thread below. WPPilot talk 02:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I say no. It does not have due weight. This page should be converted to a set index article, its unreferenced contents deleted. I am going ahead and adding Windows Media Station to it for now, until someone nominate it for deletion. Fleet Command (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * FleetCommand, why is it that you have a history of following around Codename Lisa (have you ever seen the movie Ground Hog Day?). Your profile says retired, unless Codename Lisa needs "backup" then from the wood works, here you are, like a tag team partner. talk→  WPPilot   14:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have been contributing to this area of Wikipedia since 2006 and have a post right above this threat which predates your sign up. I have written texts that have become Wikipedia policy! If anyone has to ask for permission from anyone, it is you and Codename Lisa who must ask for my permission. I don't watch movies but have certainly read All socks! It is obviously your tactic to resort to accusations whenever you see the slightest opposition, be it my outright disagreement or Codename Lisa's conditional agreement. We're not your slaves and you can't accept it.


 * My answer stands. If you don't like "no" for an answer, don't ask the question in the first place, pilot boy. Fleet Command (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I was looking for input, a simple no is not worthy of being considered as an answer and frankly I don't care, I retired from the computer business years ago, and you clearly know everything about them now, and from the past. Enjoy your tech pages. Its not worth my time. Cheers! talk→  WPPilot   03:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

User:WPPilot, For the uninitiated here, what do you want done? Is this a requested move? CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The edits that I was attempting to do here were
 * 1) Add the Windows Media Directory to the page.
 * 2) More importantly, include Windows Media Group, as the group that created the program. As you see at the top of this page a user (IP) mentions that the term Windows Media is a BRAND, I was suggesting that we also include the fact that the term "Windows Media" could also include the members of the Windows Media Group, at Microsoft, that created these tools.


 * My suggestion of the addition of the www.windowsmedia.com history, was due to the fact that this actually evolved from the original Netshow player. The player had a "guide" tab, and when the MS marketing guru's changed it to Windows Media the guide became its own page. I do have from that period of time a great deal of personal experience. My objective was to include these facts on the page, nothing more... talk→  WPPilot   22:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * So far so good. They can be included, if they have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So you want to inclue Windows Media Directory how? I did a quick google search on "Windows Media Group" and all it comes up with is stuff about group policy, do you have a link to it? I'm sorry, I think I'm not understanding you, can you link the diff's where you did it/got it reverted? CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Although he does have an edit in the article (Special:Diff/601510269/prev), it isn't about "the addition of the www.windowsmedia.com history". (Boldface emphasis is mine.) That's why I requested significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. (If you want to discuss that certain edit, please see .)


 * Just a heads up: If you are in the same region as mine, you might receive a 404 error. (Microsoft websites are region-sensitive; they do IP fingerprinting.) Go to entertainment.msn.com/windowsmediaguide/ instead. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Windows Media Group closed thread
-- WPPilottalk -- 02:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This Wiki is in correct in that the term Windows Media was the group name, as mentioned above it is a BRAND. At Microsoft that created the items listed here, but that aspect of the word "Windows Media" should also include the ORIGINAL use, (that was the foot note on many peoples pay check "Windows Media Group") and this should be noted here. WPPilot talk 05:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Preliminary check: What sources do you have? And does it have an article on Wikipedia?


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Codename Lisa, we have been down this path already. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Codename_Lisa#Windows_Media_Guide ) This article is the proper place for this. I worked directly with this group, and as a matter of fact I was the best man in one of the program leaders wedding. Your "patrolling" this page, but please remember that you do not own it. My dealings with the Windows Media group ( http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windowsmedia-licensing ) were over many years. WP:EXPERT removes any perceived COI that YOU may like in inject here. The structure of Microsoft is one that creates "teams" for each sub section of the MS core products. Windows Vista goes into detail about the teams and mentions the Windows Media "team". My interaction, with this team was for many years. We created raw data MCI device drivers for companies like Media Vision, Creative Labs, Adobe, Intel, Autodesk, Sony and more, for this program. If you simply read the first comment, on this talk page it also serves to confirm this groups existence: http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/05/behind-the-scenes-with-the-windows-media-center-dev-team/ . I have many years of contacts and contracts with this group, but do not see a great deal publicly, in the media so that was my reasoning for posting it here. Codename Lisa, I know you like to control the pages here, but to ignore this, as well as the Windows Media page that I had posted in the past that you were so kind to remove and call me a spammer in the process asserting that I in some way control the Internet Way back and simply removing it from this page. Somewhere around here I have a group photo of the original Windows media team, all on the Microsoft Motorcycle that the legal department allowed me to build, I will try to dig that up for you :) As is mentioned above, Windows Media was a BRAND created by the Windows Media TEAM at Microsoft. In the past you stated that the Windowsmedia.com site was a 404 error, that was not correct, and I was able to show you the MS copyright yet you have not bothered to replace the link that I had placed, and, I can only guess that you still do not feel the Windows Media guide: http://www.windowsmedia.com/radioui/home.aspx had any notability, or perhaps that it was created by some Microsoft impersonator who was nice enough to copyright it to Microsoft? WPPilot talk 13:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked two simple questions: Verifiability and inclusion merit. Yes or no would suffice.


 * I don't know how you do it in Microsoft, but here, we don't go down the path that we know it is disputed, and even if we go, we don't begin with WP:OWN accusations. (It is unfriendly.) We resolve our disagreement through dispute resolution and we don't comment on the contributor. Since you haven't called one, I will: I am calling in a WP:3O and an overwatch.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Did you say you are developer's best man? I am Bill Gates! I wrote FAT on a plane! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No I said I was the best man, in the wedding of one of the directors of the Windows Media Group. I am a pilot. Its nice to meet you Mr. Gates, I am happy that you are here on Wikipedia as a user named Codename Lisa, and that you feel the need to make things up as you go, kind of childlike if you ask me IMHO. Next time you want to fly around and write something LMK, I would be happy to do the flying. Codename Lisa/Bill Gates. I KNEW that you would come in with some silly comments so that is why I started this thread here. Thank you for not letting me down. It was my hopes that others, beside you, Mr. Gates, were here on the page, but perhaps your patrolling it has scared others away? I was making a point in the hopes that others would comment, you seem to want to control/force the issue to another level, why? I was just using the talk page as the result of the interaction I had I nthe past with your control of this section of Wikipedia. I stepped away from it for a while and as soon as I come back BOOM, here we are again at a dispute YOU created, I was just looking for more input from other users on the concept, your determined to run the show here. BTW: 1) I have been editing here since 2009, please don't talk down to me, I know how we do it here and I know how YOU do it here. 2) "we don't comment on the contributor." is linked to No personal attacks, do you feel that my pointing out your overzealous control of tech related pages is a personal attack, well not according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F WPPilot (talk to someone that now knows Bill Gates:) 14:37, 15 April 2014

About your Third Opinion Request: I'm a regular volunteer over at the Third Opinion project. The request for a 3O in this matter has been removed because 3O, like all other forms of mediated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia, requires thorough talk page discussion before requesting assistance. The foregoing discussion is almost entirely about conduct, not content, and does not qualify as adequate discussion. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)