User talk:Vhgk3z5b/Archive 4

Please explain in a non-rude way
That is a big overstatement. Overall, I do not edit Wikipedia in a "nonsence" way. If it occured with the Windows Vista article, please explain to me how and where I went wrong. This may be considered vandalism, but it is also something that I am offended with what you said, and this to me is abuse, "O guardian of the Vista article". I thought it was documenting a current event, but to you it isn't. My appologies, but please don't be so fret about it. Hucz 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well for one, how is it a current event? It's not even an event, it's a piece of software.  You'll notice the current event links to Portal:Current events which are all news stories.  The comment was a generic template for edits that appear as vandalism.  You were previously warned for blanking a page diff so I left the next warning up from that.  If you're edit was honest then I will definitely assume good faith and remove the warning. But could you explain your blanking of the other page and why you felt the current tag belonged on the Windows Vista page? Vhgk3z5b 05:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OKay, fair enough, you were right. But that other blank vandalism was a mistake. I tried to move the page to a page that was redirecting to itself, so it wouldn't let me move it. So I tried to cut the text out and delete the article then edit the other one and re-add the info. It didn't work like I wanted it to, so I did it the long way. But that was settled between a mod and I, so I'm assuming it's no biggie.

User:24.218.124.62 and User:148.87.1.171
That user is indeed User:148.87.1.171, etc.; just check out his User:24.218.124.62's edit history. He signs most of his comments on Talk:Best Buy under one of those Oracle ip addresses. My report for WP:AN/3RR is already filled out, but I'll wait until the next revert before I submit it. Regards, Tuxide 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Vista
Once every two hours is a reasonable amount of vandalism from my point of view. You should request unprotected at RFPP if you want a second opinion. Savidan 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Driver crash" image
As stated in Peter Gutmann's article, Vista is constantly checking to see if the display driver is valid. If it decides for some reason that said driver is bogus, it kicks out the driver and restarts the rendering engine. The error message is correct in saying that the driver crashed, but leaves out that it was Windows that intentionally crashed it. The message has only ever appeared while viewing protected DVD content in VLC (protected commercial DVDs viewed in a commercial player work fine, as do unprotected backed up DVDs in VideoLan), which leads me to believe that the driver crash is induced by the very same "display driver kill bit" Steve Gibson talked about on his podcast. Noclip 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had that message appear when I wasn't viewing any protected content. The additional (and more important) fact that Windows killing the display driver because of a program showing protected content is not attributable to Peter Gutmann's article makes it inadmissible.  Speculation isn't fact. Vhgk3z5b

Windows Vista
I reverted your reversal of Ripe's removals. In this instance, I do agree with him. A highly graphical interface makes little sense - its not clear from this whether the UI uses a lot of snazzy graphics, visual representation of stuff or something else. Completely new is also perspective - people may not consider an evolution of one GUI to be completely new. I think this term should be avoided. May be something like revamped or redone is better.

That said, I do not think all his edits are helpful, though some of them definitely points out some PoV which can miss our eyes easily (as we are so used to the content). Asking him to discuss his edits first is a good idea. --  soum  (0_o) 18:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Vhgk3z5b 18:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like we were writing to each other at the same time :) Anyways, I also do not want any revert warring. I am ready to discuss it out. :)


 * So, whats your opinion? --  soum  (0_o) 18:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you and Ripe (when he explianed his point). As long as we make sure to use the talk page to discuss changes we should be OK. Vhgk3z5b 19:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What is Attributable
"EU quote is about MS, not a criticism of Vista, the OEM comment is not Attributable" You can't be serious to suggest that http://news.com.com  is an unattributable source. The EU were concerned about Windows media player in Vista. The usage is relevant and will be reverted accordingly. Zubenzenubi 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote is attributed, the comment interpreting it is not. Vhgk3z5b 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Wait a minute, even what you quoted me saying shows that I didn't saying anything about the EU quote not being attributable, I was saying the comments in relation to the OEM issue not being attributable. I don't know how you understood it otherwise. Vhgk3z5b 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about your reversal of Dell OEM quote. Can you please explain why this is not attributable? Thanks peterl 00:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You are disingenuous in using popups to revert without explanation. You state that you will discuss on your talk page, but do not. Why? Zubenzenubi 01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disingenuous editing


 * Yes, no discussion whatsoever. Anyways, this is my talk page for communicating to things that are only in regards to me.  Could you keep the discussion about the articles on the articles' talk pages? Vhgk3z5b 01:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Warning Vandals
Hi Gurch, thanks for reverting the vandalism on the Windows Vista article. Could I ask you though, when warning vandals, to check for previous vandalism warnings and give the appropriate escalation. The vandal had numerous previous warnings, so he should probably warned with a sterner warning than one designed for first-time vandals with good faith. Keep up the good work! Vhgk3z5b 00:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. – Gurch 00:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't apologize. You didn't do anything "wrong". Vhgk3z5b 00:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it was sufficiently out of line for you to come over and leave me a boilerplate message about it. I haven't had one of those for a few months, now, and I thought I'd finally figured out how to avoid them. Evidently I still have much to learn – Gurch 01:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As do we all :-) Vhgk3z5b 02:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

References for Tomb Raider character articles
I have added two references for the Jacqueline Natla and Larson Conway pages, however I need to know do video games count as references since much of the information comes straight from the video games. Also how to I cite the biographies that were taken from official game guides when they are not published online? The Aussie Freak 4:40, 2nd May 2007 (UTC)
 * Video games do count in this case since I assume the video game is a primary source. I would use the cite video template at WP:CITET.  For game guides I would use the book format also at WP:CITET.  Sources don't have to be online or in book form to be acceptable. Vhgk3z5b 22:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion regarding warnings
Hello. Regarding your recent message at WP:ANI, investigating your report would be easier if you included the page name in the warnings you have issued to users. For example, the uw-npa1 warning:

Article references a specific article

Either way, it looks like you are doing a great job of using our full repertoire of talk messages. If you have not already done so, you may wish to join WikiProject user warnings. Thanks for your time, --Kralizec! (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Windows VIsta Networking
Hi, I was working on the Networking section of the Technical features new to Windows Vista article but felt it was becoming too long. As such, I expanded the section as a full fledged article in my sandbox. Please take a look and comment on whether I should go ahead with splitting the content to some other article like Vista networking technologies, putting only the summary in the technical features article.

P.S.: Please reply on my talk page. --  soum  (0_o) 07:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect this has ended up loking like a marketing blurb. Could you please do a review and, if possible, lend a hand? Thanks a lot. :) --  soum  (0_o) 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Back
Hey Vhgk3z5b, I'm back now. Let me know if I can be of help somewhere in particular! -/- Warren 04:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil comment
Hi Vhgk3z5b,

I happen to agree with you wholeheartedly. I wasn't sure if you were in support or opposed to what I had said... unfortunately there has been months of discussion on this resulting in a half Meg or so of text. No poll will ever be much clearer, as the one nation involved in the dispute ran stories in national media encouraging people to come vote (the other didn't seem to). The debate ended with a RM poll where one side basically didn't give any reasons (a significant number didn't even leave comments or rationales, just signing). The admin apparently unfortunately doesn't share the philosophy of "voting is evil" and closed it while just counting signatures. So... what can be done? If votes get canvassed on this major of level, and votes count instead of policies governing naming (which is why all admins came down on the other side) I guess raw headcounts are more important here. While I saw the policy about why it's evil, I didn't see a clearcut suggestion as to how to remedy when someone doesn't realize this... any suggestions? — LactoseTI T 20:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't so much an agreement or disagreement, more of an FYI and caution to polling. I suggest you take a look at WP:DISPUTE for how to proceed. Vhgk3z5b 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD closure
Hi Vhgk3z5b, given the fact that you aren't an admin and don't have much experience closing AFDs, I'm sorry but I dispute your decision to close the discussion Articles for deletion/State terrorism in Sri Lanka (Second nomination) as "no consensus", as that is a violation of WP:DELPRO. I posted a note on WP:AN/I about this for further instruction on what should be done. Just letting you know in case you wish to participate in the discussion. Cheers! --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 04:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

While I applaud you for being bold, I have reverted your closure of this AFD. According to this section of the deletion process, non-administrators shouldn't close XFDs that are not unambiguous "keeps". This one is not, as you saw. It would be better to leave this decision up to an administrator. Cheers, Sean William 04:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, that section is in dispute and also contradicts WP:ADMIN which states, "Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions."
 * Until that dispute is resolved it should not be treated as policy. Vhgk3z5b 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Silverlight
There is an RfC at Talk:Microsoft Silverlight regarding the validity of a criticism, reffed from an ArsTechnica article. Could you please offer your opinions? --soum talk 16:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nefertem
Hi, just wanted to say, you should be more careful with prodding articles - an article existing in 11 other languages, with many links to and from other pages (and with many references there), hardly can be mistaken as a hoax, even if it's completely unsourced on the page itself (which could easily be fixed by anyone spending maybe half an hour on it - but better by someone interested in the topic). --Allefant 14:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes you are correct. Thanks. :) Vhgk3z5b 15:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Netherlands Film Fund
I added some content to the article Netherlands Film Fund, do you agree it no longer should be deleted? – Ilse@ 15:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)