User talk:Warren/0703

User Account Control
Please stop adding what amounts a statement of than your personal opinion into this article. You know full well that such material is not welcome on Wikipedia, and I really shouldn't have to take the time to provide you with a link to Attribution to make this clear. Continued efforts along this line will continue to be reverted, which wastes my time and yours. Provide reliable sources, or stop. Thanks. -/- Warren 05:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not my personal opinion that Ubuntu and Mac OS X offer a similar feature. What part of this do you want a reference for? —Remember the dot (t) 17:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to hold your hand through Attribution and Neutral point of view, but the short of it is this: Any statements which express a view or opinion must be attributable to a reliable source.  It says this right in our content policies -- it's not up for discussion.  -/- Warren 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the policies. I'm asking what part of my contributions you are challenging. Are you challenging that Ubuntu and Mac OS X offer features similar to UAC? Are you challenging that the features are indeed similar to UAC? Are you challenging that sudo was around before UAC? —Remember the dot (t) 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye Warrens
I am officially leaving Wikipedia for good. Thanks for all you've done for me here. Jdlowery 04:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

IE7 pop-up blocker
May I ask you what you did to actually block the pop-ups generated at popuptest.com? I did not modify many default settings on my copy of IE7, though I did add a URL bar.

Since your pop-up blocker worked, I'm betting mine was turned off. SteveSims 01:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't use Explorer (Firefox is much faster, has many shitty and a few cool skins, a Java script blocker, etc.) but I'll still do that. I don't want to open Explorer on accident like I have occasionally and get malware from pop-ups. SteveSims 05:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone's been using my screenshot of IE7, which we've established is probably inaccurate. The IE articles recently underwent a large revision (a separate page was created for IE7, for example). Could you replace my image with yours, either by editing the pages with the one you uploaded or uploading a new version of yours under my image's name? Thanks. SteveSims 08:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

user page
Heh, if some random person edits my user page solely to increase the vandalism count, does it count as vandalism, but it doesn't need to be reverted because it's correct? Gah, a paradox! :-) -/- Warren 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha, yeah, I thought about it. Happened to me once, too. I decided to put the choice in your hands. :-) — Alex (T 03:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I say revert it, because if it isn't reverted then it isn't vandalism. Revert and then increment the vandalism count. — Alex (T 03:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Windows Vista Image Removal
Please may you explain in detail to me why you removed my of the editions of Windows Vista, as I didn't understand it when you wrote it on the Vista Page history and I don't want to make the same mistake again. ( Could You Reply On My Page ) Thanks

Thankyou very much for your explanation. Rugby471 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is PR
Do you work for Microsoft?

This article should be removed.

The bullets listed appear in PR materials and should not be published as credible on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.204.160.122 (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Edit count
It has become apparent that you have now passed over 10,000 edits. I believe you may be an admin in the next few (???). If possible, i may nominate you for admin. — Mete oroid   »  03:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

MedCab case
Hi. I'm currently mediating a case into which you're involved.

Please take a look of the case here.

For a successful mediation, I need to hear every position and its arguments, including yours, of course ;-).

So, please voice your opinion on the case's page.

I'm at your disposal for every question.

Happy editing,

 Snowolf (talk)CONCOI  -  18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Could you look at
I must say that I am amazed at how much the articles around Windows Vista have grown. It doesn't seem that long ago that it was just one article... or does it. The main article has improved in order of magnitudes. I've seen the series template box coming for a long time, and I think it is great. The list of topics article could do with some polish, but overall the improvements are great. Harryboyles 11:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of Windows Vista series template
Hi. I was going through the Windows Vista articles looking at the template positioning. Due to its shape and due to the infoboxes, the template is widely varying in positioning, and in some cases looking really odd. Was just wondering if a horizontal template running across the bottom of the article be a better idea. -- soum সৌমো yasch  17:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I wanted to give the Article series template a try to see if we could make that particular layout work for our situation. If we had similar positioning for all those templates (top-right corner, e.g.), it'd make for a good experience.  Easier said than done, though. :-)


 * The thing is, I only intended for it to be put on the main Vista articles, as per standard convention for article series templates... the user who added it to Windows Calendar has been doing a lot of similar unhelpful things on other articles (like adding the Microsoft template to WinFS, and destroying the lead section in Internet Explorer for no particularily good reason. -/- Warren 18:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Help
Let me need know if you need help on adding/removing templates, ok? Digita 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea
And I think you might like this one... we could collaborate on making an article that compares and contrasts the privilege escalation mechanisms in Windows and Unix. There are some really interesting things that can be said in this context, like calling out the difference between su, sudo, runas, and UAC, and there's a lot of good, detailed documentation we can draw on. Readers could draw their own conclusions about what approach is "better", and then the articles on UAC, sudo, etc. can all link to that. If we stick with the factual details, we can avoid the issue of trying to answer questions like "who came first?" or "who's better?".... What do you think? -/- Warren 19:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be fine. How about if we call it Comparison of privilege escalation features? That's a mouthful, but I can't think of anything shorter. Also, though it is a good idea to create this article and link to it on User Account Control, sudo and su (Unix), sudo still deserves a brief mention in User Account Control. In the sufficiently brief "Similarity to other operating systems" section, the first line could be "Main article: Comparison of privilege escalation features". Similar sections could be added to sudo and su (Unix) if you'd like. —Remember the dot (t) 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.... What if we went with something more basic like Elevation (computer security)? It'd fit nicely into Category:Operating system security since we don't appear to have a decent article which discusses the concept.  -/- Warren 05:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Elevation (computer security) still sounds kind of ambiguous to me. Also, since there doesn't seem to be a universal term to group UAC, sudo, and the like, we should probably stick with a title that starts with "Comparison of". That would make it clear that it is a comparison of the various programs, and not just a discussion of the general concept. In short, since the concept doesn't really have a name as of yet, we should say "Comparison of..." to avoid making the article title imply that the concept has a name.

So, how about Comparison of action authorization features? It has a nice ring to it :D —Remember the dot (t) 06:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A good point indeed. Who'd have thought that such a ubiquitous concept wouldn't have an agreed-upon term?  Oh well. Authorization is a good word, though... what if we combined it with privilege, e.g. Comparison of privilege authorization features?  -/- Warren 06:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I like the word "action" rather than "privilege". To me, sudo and UAC let the user authorize actions. The actions could be modifying privileges, modifying the contents of protected system folders, etc. "privilege" implies giving or removing permissions, whereas the UAC/sudo/su/runas concept applies to authorizing a wide variety of possible administrator actions. I suppose what's going on under the hood is that the user gives programs privileges to do certain things, but the average user probably just thinks of it as confirming or denying an action. —Remember the dot (t) 06:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, I think "action authorization" gets the idea across clearly and concisely, and "privilege authorization" is a more technical way of looking at it. I'd like people to be able to see the title and instantly remember what concept it refers to, no matter what their level of technical experience is. —Remember the dot (t) 07:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've thought about it some more and concluded that it can be looked at both ways. For example "privilege authorization" more accurately describes the "Run as administrator" command than "action authorization" does. So Comparison of privilege authorization features would be fine. —Remember the dot (t) 07:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten the Comparison of privilege authorization features article started. I welcome your input on how to improve it. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Windows Vista article: Visual styles
I understand that you removed the reference from a May 2006 blog, but I think it was unneccessary to remove my entire edit and call it inaccurate. It is accurate information, as properly referenced in Paul Thurrott's review. You can also see in the screenshot of Windows Classic in the same Windows Vista article, there are some old beta icons (back/forward, refresh, search icon) present in the Explorer windows and the Start menu. --Samvscat 03:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at Paul Thurrott's review. It says nothing about the iconography of Windows Classic. It says nothing about it being "unfinished" or "unpolished".  Quit making shit up and stuffing it in the mouths of others.  That's not acceptable on Wikipedia.  -/- Warren 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What warrants that type of nasty response? I get attacked like that and I'm supposed to regard you as offering some kind of be-all, end-all opinion? Regardless, I can re-add my edit using a quote of Thurrott's exact words, although I have a feeling you'll revert that too because it doesn't reflect your opinion of what should be in the article. --Samvscat 05:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a new edit; if you choose to revert it, I won't bother to attempt again. --Samvscat 05:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks... That's a hundred times better than your original submission. I won't remove it.  I'm a strong proponent of razor-sharp accuracy in Attribution, because anything short of that makes Wikipedia appear shoddy and subject to opinioneering from individual editors, rather than a dispassionate collation and summation of knowledge. -/- Warren 06:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's good to hear. Thank you for following Civility this time in your response to me. --Samvscat 06:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Talk Page is becoming very long
Hi Warrens. Your talk page is becoming very long for a long time. Can you please archive your talk page as now? Thank you!  Jigs41793  Talk  /  contribs  05:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Holy moly, I did let it go for a bit too long, didn't I? Thanks for the reminder!  -/- Warren 06:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your user page
Hi. I redesigned your user page with colorful background to view your beautiful experience. Of course, this is not a vandalism. I hope you continue to contribute Windows-related articles! Thank you again!  Jigs41793  Talk  /  contribs  08:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My activity on Wikipedia
Hey, sorry for not helping you out on Wikipedia articles as much anymore. It's just that I have a few things that I have to take care of in life. I'll try working on articles a bit harder in the coming weeks, though. — Alex (T 10:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision wars
There is a large going on when uploading images. I have now placed this admonition to discourage users from uploading and reverting it. This image has been repeatedly reverted by several users (see below). Anyone uploading this image may possibly trigger a revision war. Such users who do this will be blocked without further warning.

—Meteoroid » 23:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey... thanks for note. Yeah, I've been keeping an eye on it.  Hopefully the editor who got blocked for revert warring will learn from the experience and not pursue the issue any further... we've all got better things to do. -/- Warren 00:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He's back to reverting it to his version. Sigh... — Alex (T 09:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ...he does have a point, though. In a way. We have to somehow make the screenshots not as cold. For example, showing an empty Microsoft Word window doesn't really get anything across. I think Long Zheng had a nice screenshot of it (some formatted text generated using =rand), but I believe it got deleted. We have to somehow make the screenshot more aesthetically pleasing. Any ideas? — Alex (T 09:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The screenshot is still there. This is what I mean: Image:Officeword2007.png. — Alex (T 09:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. We could just replicate the Windows Vista version of the image, which shows the media library.  That'll always look more interesting than an empty player window. -/- Warren 09:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was considering that, too. Just something worth of mention, though: look at the iTunes page. They're using Fall Out Boy album art. Should it be in use on that page? — Alex (T 10:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the closest we could get to "ideal" fair use for WMP, iTunes etc. screenshots, would be to get some Creative Commons-licensed albums (artwork + tracks) and use that. That's not a trivial undertaking, and also not very easy to maintain in the years to come.  I'm not really up on where one could go to find such music.  As long as the album art itself is small (like it is in WMP11 album view), and as long as the fair-use rationales for each image is clear about it, we should be fine.  -/- Warren 10:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Cat
Yes, that would be reasonable.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert E-DRM changes
You reverted my move of the E-DRM paragraph from the intro to a section below. 1. You claim that I removed it. I didn't remove it, I moved it to what I consider a much more appropriate location. It's unlikely that E-DRM is a tier-1 DRM concept that requires it in the lead section. 2. Actually I did give a reason; see the history. 3. Your revert blasted over my other changes. I'm resubmitting my changes to the article since you didn't understand what I did or why I did it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.232.58.195 (talk • contribs).


 * I know precisely what you did: You made fundamental edits under the justification of "I've never heard of E-DRM, therefore it gets less prominence".  You're trying to change the definition of what Digital Rights Management -is- without discussing it or providing a strong rationale for doing so.  I'm going to reinstate the original text a second time, and per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I ask you to justify your edits on the article's talk page.  A lot of time and effort was put into concocting the definition as it stands, and reflects a consensus view amongst a number of editors.  Respect that, and provide a precise explanation for why your wording changes would be considered an improvement.  Thanks.  -/- Warren 17:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, your revert comment stated that I deleted information, which I did not. Also it says I didn't provide justification, which I did in the comment field, which is the standard place to put it. Your characterization of my argument for moving the section is not what I said - I maintain E-DRM is not a tier-1 concept that is justified in the intro paragraphs - google for E-DRM returns essentially wikipedia, unrelated expansions, & some relatively minor implementations. I suggest /you/ read the policy on not reverting good faith edits. But fine, I'll submit to the talk page for others' feedback.


 * OK my suggested intro is on the talk page under the cleanup section. The changes to the 1st & 2nd paragraphs are an attempt to remove extraneous words without removing any facts. In addition I felt justified moving E-DRM to deeper into the article with the rest of the application-specific items (e.g. CSS & DVD aren't mentioned by name above the TOC; didn't think other app-specific items such as AutoCAD file DRM ought to be either, especially given 0 citations, the paucity of Google hits on the term, and others' notes that the usage is rare - see EDRM). Please provide comments. 71.232.58.195 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Windows 200x
Do you think this article should be nominated for deletion? I think all of the information is mentioned in the Windows NT article. — Alex (T 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. We have an article on Windows 9x. Then again, there isn't another term that adequately describes that particular set of operating systems, whereas 200x describes a subset of Windows NT.  -/- Warren 05:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anyone even call it the 200x series? I think everyone who refers to the NT/2000/XP/2003... class of OSs refer to it as the NT series. So may be this should be a redirect to the NT article (for the NT series). Otherwise we will end up with an article every decade. :P Anyways, in the Release History table in Windows NT article, where do you think Home Server fits in? A separate row or as a version of Server 2003? My vote would be for a separate row. -- soum  talk  05:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did some poking around when I saw the article appear. The term is floating around on various vendor web sites and discussion grounds, as well as (interestingly enough) on MSKB 555741, which was published recently.  That's why I'm not sure of what to think of it... the term might gain some extra traction after Server Longhorn's final name is released, too.  Maybe the answer is to have a paragraph in Windows NT about the term, and have Windows 200x redirect to that?  As for the WHS thing, a separate line seems appropriate to me.  We have a separate one for FLP already, so the precedent is there.  -/- Warren 05:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mentioning it in the NT article and redir to the para seems a good idea. Also, I am keenly interested in starting the DRM features in Windows Vista article, as you had sometime back. But I am afraid, once it gets considerable content, it will probably become the most vandalized article in Wikipedia. What say? Lets create it? -- soum  talk  06:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yeah. We could put together something decent there, but the danger in doing so is that we might end up duplicating a lot of what would rightly belong in Protected Media Path or Windows Rights Management Services.  How it would interact with Criticism of Windows Vista should be considered, too.  I don't like acronyms in titles, though, and I'm really hesitant to call such capabilities "features". :)  how about simply Digital Rights Management in Windows Vista? -/- Warren 06:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats better. If we focus on detailed technical discussion then we can get unique content in. We could provide some description of Protected Media Path and Rights Management Services in Vista and link to the main articles. As for criticism, we could keep the article purely technical and all criticisms will be redirected to the criticism articles. Other DRM technologies will also be given descent coverage. Plus, how it fits with other technologies like Intel LaGrande will also be covered. Or may be make the article a bit more generic and include content security features such as bitlocker and the Crypto NexGen subsystem as well. -- soum  talk  07:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Sounds great. Comparison of privilege authorization features is coming along really well, and I still want to expand User Account Control some more, so I'd like to get some of that finished up before I start digging into the DRM. This page at WHDC seems to collate a bunch of useful documents on the subject. I think Bitlocker and CNG are best left to the "new security features" article, though, unless they have specific aspects which are used in the DRM design. And yeah, acknowledging the criticism is important, even if it only goes so far as to link the reader to the appropriate section in the Criticism article. -/- Warren 08:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Low-five
Yeah, he's a weird puppy. I've dealt with him before — he's got a very specific (and strange) m.o.. He changes articles and images about recent Microsoft products to old info and images from Windows 95 and the like. He also likes to change image suffixes to break image links: for example, he'll change "image.svg" to "image.SVG", which is a different filename to MediaWiki. Oh, and he likes to change fonts in other people's signatures or userboxes too. Definitely an odd duck, but at least he's easy to recognize. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Microsoft
Hey Warren, Its been a few months since anything major has really happened to the template, but I notice you're still paying attention to it. I hate to revive dead discussions, but I think that some of the stuff needs to be trimmed out. Would it be ok with you if I remove some of the more trivial items? If you disagree with any deletions, feel free to add them back. I just don't want to accidentally spark an edit war like we almost had in December. &mdash; W. Flake ( talk ) 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Article splitting
Awaiting your comments on Technical features new to Windows Vista :) -- soum  talk  06:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Your monster sig
Can you please reduce the incredible hugeness of your sig? It's very distracting on talk pages. Something about 2/3 the current size would do it. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 07:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My sig length is 147 bytes and renders at 72x16 on Firefox on Vista, yours is 277 bytes and renders at about 200x16. Honestly, don't you have something better to do than be critical of other editors' signatures, when you yourself could be subject to the same criticism? -/- Warren 13:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry; to be clearer: I'm not talking about a few bytes, which don't mean much even in terms of analog modems these days; I was speaking of visual height. Your sig is about 3x the size of everyone else's.  It's kind of the Hummer of sigs.  READ ME READ ME READ ME!!! it seems to say. Anyway, it was just a request; it's not meant as a personal attack or anything. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 18:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't render in an outsized fashion on any combination of browser and platform available to me. I would have changed it a long time ago if that was the case.  What are you using? -/- Warren 00:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship
 Z.E.R.O. would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Z.E.R.O. to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/ 2. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. I know that you have considered withdrawning yourself from your previous RfA, but I have notified you this because if you are ready to have sysop access. I will create a nomination page if you accept this nomination. — ze  ro   »  · 4:58:09 am, Saturday, 24 March 2007
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * Hey, I'm still not interested in being an admin. I've got plenty to keep me busy as a regular editor. Thanks. -/- Warren 19:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Declined?
Why you declined to become a Wikipedia Administrator? So when you become an administrator? — zero » 19:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Windows Vista Programmability features
Hey, in the Technical features new to Windows Vista article, I am thinking of summarizing the individual API sections (mainly the WinFX APIs) and linking to their own article, to shorten the article. In fact, I have already started working on it. What do you think?

Also, I am working on expanding the individual API articles. I am still thinking about starting the API article, but will wait till all the individual API articles are tackled. Then we can structure the API article to avoid overlap.

As for the DRM article, you were right. The DRM article should wait till media foundation and WinRMS articles are enhanced. --  soum  (0_o) 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On another note, I really think you can put the admin buttons to good use. :) --  soum  (0_o) 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good so far... WPF is probably going to need more space than WCF due to how much space it covers, but there's a lot of opportunity for tightening things up there.


 * I've been thinking about the main Features new to Windows Vista article and how we could have sections for each specific third-tier page on there. In other words, it'd be an expansion of what is in Windows Vista, keeping the same general order of things, but leaving the really detailed stuff to the third tier.  Ultimately, that would mean that there would be a Programmability section in the main Features article (instead of Technical), but it would be really short... two or three paragraphs max. Then we'd have that API article get into more detail about each component.  Whew, layers and layers. :-) -/- Warren 17:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Really, so many tiers would be really difficult to handle. :P Shorter redirects to all these articles - like FWV for Features new to Windows Vista, TWV for Technical features new to Windows Vista - would really help navigation for editors :D --  soum  (0_o) 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Windows Vista Netwroking
Hey, the networking section (Technical features article) is big enough to be a self-contained article. I was thinking of spinning it off into an article like Vista networking technologies (on the lines of Vista IO technologies). What say?

Plus the WPF section is a bit confusiong as it does not make the disctinction and relationship with DWM clear. I will be summarizing the section and update the WPF secn tonight. --  soum  (0_o) 13:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I expanded the networking section by two paragraphs, and its already around 20 odd KB. There are still a few more things to add, mainly around wireless network (which I will be doing first in the sandbox, take a look. I think it should be spun off. What say? Also, I was thinking, in case this is spun off, should Network Access Protection get some mention? --  soum  (0_o) 21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

my page
Thanks. I just put that up as an April Fool's joke though. (I actually get little vandalism on my page, so I don't need to worry that much).-- Wizardman 04:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Windows Vista
It seems a bit rude and unnecessary of you to remove my contribution to the talk page on this. I didn't touch the main article and was making an intelligent contribution, hoping to get some feedback. SmokeyTheCat 11:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's policy: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It also says this right at the top of the talk page. Removing off-topic conversation is actually necessary to keep us focused on building an encyclopedia. -/- Warren 15:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My Adminship

 * My RfA has succeeded. Thanks for the support you have given in the RfA. Its really appreciated. :) Do not hesitate to contact me for any help you might need. --  soum  (0_o) 08:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Redesign your user page & talk page
Warren, can I redesign your user page? Please reply me to my talk page.  Jigs41793  Talk  /  contribs  22:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not interested now... maybe later this year? I'll let you know.  Thanks. :) -/- Warren 23:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

S'ware incompat
I don't understand why you removed my addition of s'ware incompat, when there was already a game incompat? To many people using vista, the s'ware incompat is a bigger issue than game incompat - I would have expected Vista Business to have a fairly small gamer base. Why isn't it a criticim of Vista - here's a new OS, quite a bit of your s'ware won't work. I think that's bad. I criticise that. If h'ware requirements are a criticism of this (or any) OS< then surely s'ware incompat is too? peterl 11:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't write your own criticism into articles on Wikipedia. Your personal opinion (or mine) on the matter are not welcome.  You have to find reliable, published sources that state this criticism, and quote them.  That's how Wikipedia works.  Also, simply stating that something works or doesn't isn't criticism in and of itself; it's just a statement. An analysis as to why the something is good or bad, is what criticism is all about. Think about film critics; they don't just write something like, "Prisoner of Azkaban is a movie about young wizards, it's two and a half hours long and is now playing in theaters", right?  They proffer opinions about the actors, the set pieces, the directorship, and so on.  -/- Warren 11:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * True. But it's not just me. For just one example, see http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=197700789 where DOT says "Compatibility with existing applications appears to be the Transportation Department's major concern." peterl 12:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, but "appears to be" isn't the sort of foundation we want to be building Wikipedia articles on. If we can find studies and professional analysis of the issue, that would be a much stronger starting point. You're on the right track, though... keep looking around and I'm sure you'll find some good stuff.  With that said, further discussion about the article's current or future contents should continue on Talk:Windows Vista where everyone can see it... thanks. -/- Warren 12:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Shall do. peterl 12:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Windows Genuine Advantage Notification.png in Windows XP article
I reverted again -- now, I putted the CartoonNetworkImageTag license tag because the Codename: Kids Next Door cartoon (founded on the Desktop background) is produced from Cartoon Network. So please keep this new image as is. If you reverted it again, tell me to my talk page why you revert a second time.  Jigs41793  ( Talk ) ( Contribs ) 12:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Accusation
Hello, recently, you accused me for saying false information about Microsoft paying a user to change it's article on Wiki. Please do not accuse me also of telling false information, that I have sources for.

If you still think this is false, make a check on the link below, or type in: Microsoft Pays Wikipedia in Google.

Information Week Article Google Link

Even so, Wikipedia opened up edits after a period of time after the incident. Thank you. LostNecromancer 21:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are still wondering why you haven't known about this yet, it's because most of these events were on newspaper articles and on television News here in Toronto. LostNecromancer 22:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I live in Toronto, so I'm familiar with what the local coverage was saying at the time. Second, what you're citing is patent bullshit -- at the time InformationWeek article was written, Rick Jelliffe had not accepted any payments, nor had he edited the article.  Third, it wasn't "Microsoft" that put the offer out to Jelliffe; it was an individual at the company acting without their manager's knowledge.  Fourth, I was involved with on-Wiki discussions about the issue at the time the issue came up, so I'm pretty damned sure that I know more about this issue than you or most armchair commentators.  Go see Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 1 as a starting point.


 * Now who are you going to believe? The news media, who hypes up stories to sell advertising? (Ask yourself this question: why is the InformationWeek article titled "Microsoft pays blogger to 'Correct' Wikipedia entry", when the article content describes it as an "offer"?  Doesn't that make you suspicious?)  Or, are you goint to believe the words and actions of actual participants, and Wikipedia's own history logs, which are readily available for anybody to review?  Here, I'll give you a hand -- that's the entirety of Rick Jelliffe's contributions to the article: fixing a typo.  That's it.  He also recently contributed a few paragraphs to a related article, but it's hardly controversial stuff.  Most of the actual work of improving the Office Open XML articles at the time the issue came up was done by a number of different established editors who have a history of prior contributions in other areas of Wikipedia, myself included.  The article was getting a lot of media attention, and was in pretty bad shape, so people took time out of their lives to work on it.


 * That's all I'm going to say on the issue. Now it's up to you to decide whether you're willing to invest some time to confirm that what's coming out of your mouth is factually correct.  Have a nice day.  -/- Warren 00:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ripe
I've asked him to discuss his changes on the talk page before making them. If he continues more agressive actions (mediation, requests for comments, etc.) may be required. Paul Cyr 16:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice one
"restoring Category:Discontinued Microsoft software; don't remove it again until you've looked up the word in the dictionary and can demonstrate we're using it inappropriately"

Hope you feel like a big man, writing that. Feel good? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This comment says a lot more about you than it does about me. Have a nice day.  -/- Warren 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Microsoft Windows
Hey, I see you're part of the WikiProject Microsoft Windows, but it isn't part of the WP:1.0 program. Let me know if you want to take part in it and I'll help you out, since I'm part of the WikiProject Ukraine. That's what I did for that WikiProject. — Alex(T 09:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Alex, the idea is definitely interesting to me, especially since we do have several articles floating around that may be suitable for inclusion in 1.0. My time to work on Wikipedia is going to be pretty limited for the next few weeks, so I won't be able to devote much time to it yet.  By all means, go ahead and get the ball rolling, however it's done, and I'll keep an eye on it and try to learn about what's involved. :) -/- Warren 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Got it started: WikiProject Microsoft Windows/Assessment. Now all the WikiProject members have to do is add/modify to/on every article within the scope of the WikiProject. I did one for you already. :-) — Alex(T 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Page is updated by a bot: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~aoleg/wp/wp10/run_wp10.html — Alex(T 23:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Windows Vista game compatibility
Thanks for the rename! Must have been more tired than I thought when I created it. - RoyBoy 800 01:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Jigs41793
Hey, u seem busy these days, dont see you around a lot! Newyas, regarding your reversal of Jigs41793's user page, shouldn't the count be two only? I am confused. :D --  soum  (0_o) 19:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:User no GFDL
Just thought you'd like to know:

A template you participated in a Tfd for (Template:User no GFDL) has subsequently been speedily deleted, and is now under deletion review. Miss Mondegreen | Talk  16:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why Did You Remove My Edits?
All the sources I removed were old and were refering to Vista versions previous to Windows Vista RTM. And some places were missing sources. (please reply to my talk page) Chetblong 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)