User talk:Encyclopedia77/Archive 12

Windows XP
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. AussieLegend (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note, as the editor wishing to change the article it is up to you to convince others as to the value of your changes, now that they've been opposed by more than one editor. The changes that you've made are opposed for the reasons that I've outlined at Talk:Windows XP. Most notably, the image that you've uploaded has an incomplete and invalid fair use rationale. Because of this it is a copyright violation to use it in an article. The image was tagged almost immediately after it was uploaded and you were informed at the same time. You need to address this before the image can be used. Of slightly less importance is that you have not explained why there is an npov issue with the article. The tag is useless without an explanation. Thirdly, you need to convince other editors as to why your image is a better image to use. Lastly, you need to convince editors as to why your claim about XP being hailed, which is not supported by citations and therefore subject to deletion under Wikipedia's verifiability policy, is relevant to a section dealing with criticism. Simply reverting the explained edits of others isn't going to force your edits into the article. That's vandalism and will just get you blocked (again). You need to discuss this issue. I'm going to fix the article now to address the invalid npov tag and the copyright issue. Please don't revert. DISCUSS. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, reversions that are aimed at correcting copyright violations, are exempt from 3RR so, instead of posting silly warnings on people's talk pages you should be concentrating on fixing the issues that I've raised and discussing the changes that you wish to implement. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Neutral?"
Actually criticising or hailing would not be be encyclopaedic or maintaining a neutral point of view. That, however, is not what the article does. The article objectively discusses the criticisms directed at Windows XP by third parties and that is encyclopaedic. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs to have an NPOV. The "Criticisms of Windows XP" page is for that. So that section is optional. Just delete it and link to that page somewhere. -- Encyclopedia77 Talk 21:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Criticism section does have an NPOV. It neutrally explains criticism. The same goes for Criticism of Windows XP, which is just a Summary style spin-off of Windows XP's criticism section. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)