User talk:Warren/0706

Windows 3.1 Pic
I do not aprove of u deleeting my screenshot. there is plenty of other screenshots on other windows versions so whts wrong with a different look windows 3.1? i think its good to show the personalisation u can do to it. I expoect an explanation

Heh
Knew you'd revert me. http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/robert/archive/2007/05/11/windows-server-longhorn-is-now-windows-server-2008.aspx — Alex(U 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, slow thinking today. You didn't revert me, but that's my source for Windows Server 2008. — Alex(U 23:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah... some Microsoft sign-up pages are saying Windows Server 2008 now. You know me, I'm a stickler for these things, but this looks like the real thing... run with it! -/- Warren 00:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Open open open.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Open open open.PNG. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Alex(U 08:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Decided to let you know since the bot didn't. --— Alex(U 08:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Windows Vista
Hey Warrens, would you mind hopping over to Criticism of Windows Vista and puting your $0.02 in? Right now it's a one vs. one arguement between me and Zubenzenubi and I would appiciate a third opinion. He says his information is valid, I say it's unattribuateble and source-less, he adds the info, I revert it, he reverts me, I revert him and we aren't getting anywhere. Paul Cyr 20:28, 16 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)

Welcome back
Welcome back bro! While you were on break, the RfA reform had heated up and four admin accounts had been hijacked. That was the only fun you missed. :D On the article side, Microsoft Silverlight and Microsoft SoftGrid have seen some action. Meanwhile, I was organizing the Microsoft navigation templates. Vista networking technologies has been forked off from Technical features new to Windows Vista, but whether the name is okay is still up for debate.

Recently, we are having a problem on how to deal with IE add-ons, like fiddler, IE Developer Toolbar and Internet Explorer Administration Kit. Should we maintain a list of them like in List of Internet Explorer extensions or index them in List of Internet Explorer Add-ins, on the footsteps of List of Microsoft Windows components, with the popular add-ons getting their own article. The third option is to give them their own sections in the list article. Your comments have been missed. :)

Anyways, hope you had a rocking time. --  soum  (0_o) 04:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Template
Hey, I think it would be better to leave the apps in the template for quick one-touch access. They do make nav easier. May be a separate windows components line? What do you think? --  soum  (0_o) 09:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with this is that if we leave the door open to include arbitrary components, people will keep adding more or fiddling with which ones are already there. There's at least two dozen "important" components that could be listed, and it's better to avoid that altogether, just for the sake of keeping the template focused on mentioning all the different parts of Microsoft's business.


 * Perhaps the answer here is to build a navigation template for components of Windows, along the same lines as the Microsoft APIs one you put together earlier this month. I've been thinking about that for a year but I've never gotten around to doing it. :-) -/- Warren 14:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah that can be a bit of a problem. But there are already too many templates! I was thinking of a super-template that will house all the templates in their collapsed forms, with some parameter deciding which template to open by default. How about that? --  soum  (0_o) 17:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd written you a lengthy reply to this but it doesn't appear to have been posted. Hmpfh.  The short short version of my thoughts is this:  We could create some more side navigation templates like Windows Vista, which I think has worked out really well as our first "experiment" with banding together a set of closely related Windows articles.  There's a bunch of places where this would work out nicely, like with DirectX articles or Windows XP or Control Panel stuff or whatever.  The key is to pick areas where the list of subjects is well-defined and completable; such a template would have 5-15 items.  Then, we can cover the broad-scope stuff in bottom-of-article nav templates.  I don't particularily like having more than one of those templates at the bottom of the page... it's a lot of clutter.  The bottom of Mac OS X is particularily heinous.  -/- Warren 03:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP
Hi Warrens,

I'm not familiar with all regulations on the English wikipedia (instead, I'm mostly active on wikipedia NL). I have reverted your edit, beause I remembered that I have read in the past both positive aspects and not-so-positive aspects of wordperfect (for what I mean, you might have a look at this version of the text I randomly choose a few moments ago). Imho, no hard feelings. :-)

Annabel 14:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: I'm not related to Corel nor was I related to WordPerfect corporation

Open-Xchange
Hi Warrens,

I understand why the multiple links to the Open-Xchange site were removed; however since the project has many different aspects (commercial and community) it just makes it easier to navigate. Also, the partner listing were not to advertise for them or for us in any way. It was simply links to other companies associated with OX, as either resellers, developers, etc. Please let me know what references would be appropriate to get these messages across without violating any Wikipedia rules. It is not, and never has been, my intention to promote product sales with this definition. Thanks, Coti.b 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nav templates
Need a review :). Its not complete yet. The order of templates is to be decided. The spacing between them reduced, if not removed, and other kinks ironed. But it at least shows the intention. --  soum  (0_o) 12:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Actually you are quite late in this case. :P It was announced yesterday! Cya around. --  soum  (0_o) 18:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and one thing, in the lead of Mac OS X v10.5 it says it will support 64bit GUI apps, but from what I have read, support will not be limited to GUI apps only. Could you please take a look at that? Sorry for bombarding with requests. :D --  soum  (0_o) 18:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

in which Moe berates Warren

 * I wish you would assume good faith a little more than call me a blatant liar, I take it as a personal attack. It was a minor edit to add the tag, regardless. I notified the uploader of the Image I tagged and tagged the Image appropritely. Conforting me head on by first calling me a liar, ain't going to help your chances. — M o e   ε  23:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you back off. How is disrepectful, I think you need to look up the meaning, because I'm not trying to decieve editors into anything, and your assuming bad faith that I am. I did everything as policy, guidelines and custom dictates. It does not matter what the hell I put in my edit summary when I correctly tag the damn thing. And what the hell are you talking about? I put orphan(ed), and no rationale in my last few edit summaries. The last one I put minor edit in was the one you already bitched at me about. — M o e   ε  23:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There was no issue to begin with. Now I request you stop leaving me messages unless you got something else left to discuss. — M o e   ε  00:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What the hell did I just tell you about personal attacks? — M o e   ε  00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We have an encyclopedia to build, Moe. Please feel free to use my talk page for issues solely relating to that goal.  Thanks.  -/- Warren 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And how does insulting me in a heading, changing my edit, help benefit this encyclopedia? — M o e   ε  00:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's really not an insult, Moe, and I mean that sincerely. It's just a word that describes what you've done here. AHD's definition of "berate" is "To rebuke or scold angrily and at length".  Let me organise my talk page as I wish.  Again, I request that you use my talk page for issues solely related to building the encyclopedia.  I trust you'll agree that continuing this discussion benefits nobody.  Thanks.  -/- Warren 00:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the point, you're changing my edit to what you see fit. How would you like it if I restored you're conversation and renamed the heading "Warrens tirelessly ranting about some shit"? It's not right to casually change headings when it offends someone and I'm telling you right now, yes, it does offends me. — M o e   ε  00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Moe, look. Your original heading of was not related to the discussion. I chose a heading I feel is appropriate to the ensuing discussion. If you're insulted, well... get over it, okay? It's not an insult. Really! If I have to refer this to WP:3RR to get you to stop editing headings on my talk page, we can go that route. Alternately, you can just leave it alone and get on with your life. -/- Warren 00:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR applys to articles, generally not any place else, and 3RR would apply to you as well, not just me. Your just making yourself look like an ass when you changed, so I was actually trying to do you a favor and save you some face. "Well, get over it" isn't the answer, either. When someones offended at a statement, you should do you're best to not make it offensive, not continuing to do so because you don't like me. Personally your not my favorite person right now either, but you're first impression calling me a blatant liar didn't help you. I'm not going to change it again, I'll just accept the fact that you're violating policy and will revert war to do so. I suggest you not talk to me, for a long time. — M o e   ε  00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 3RR can apply to any action taken by any editor on Wikipedia... it isn't just for article space. The goal is to help promote consensus by discussion. A user is also generally exempted from 3RR in their own user space. This is all outlined on WP:3RR; I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise. If you feel I'm violating policy, feel free to report me to an administrator. -/- Warren 01:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do you one better, I won't report you for violating WP:NPA yet saving you more face. I feel sorry for you, you have to resort to name-calling and snap judgements to resolve you're disputes. — M o e   ε  01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your charity is duly noted. Now can we get back to ensuring that fair-use rationales are being placed on screenshots?  I've already corrected all the ones you've reported that aren't orphaned, by the way. -/- Warren 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can, as long as you can avoid running to my talk page. — M o e   ε  01:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image renaming
Yes, even you do. Save, rename, reupload. :D Other than that, no. --soum talk 18:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just lemme kno if you need the older image be deleted. --soum talk 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My Documents image
Hey, how do you get so many buttons in the My Docs window? --soum talk 18:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On the title bar? That's from a program called Ultramon, a really nice multi-monitor manager.  Dang... didn't even notice that!  It was one of my first image uploads. :)  I've fixed it. -/- Warren 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey would you please take a look at my RfA and vote? ) Chetblong 22:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Stop
It is necessary to have both there, as both use different assessment systems. ( [ →] zel zany  - review) 03:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it is acceptable to have both there, as the articles that I've tagged/assessed are in the scope of WikiProject Computing as well as WikiProject Microsoft Windows. ( [ →] zel zany  - review) 03:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not make personal attacks. Furthermore, I've been through this before, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California.  I've originally removed relevant tags from Talk:Interstate 80 before, but now I understand that the article is in the scope of multiple WikiProjects, not just the main project, which is WP:IH.  I've also found out that behaviour like that would imply WP:OWN, and your revertions have implied owning the talk pages. ( [ →] zel  zany  - review) 03:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To be more concise, [ this] implies WikiProject Microsoft Windows ownership of the article and talk page, which is entirely not true given the fact that everyone is entitled to edit constructively to Wikipedia. ( [ →] zel zany  - review) 03:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The main focal point right now is not about parent/child relationships. Even though WikiProject Microsoft Windows is a descendant of WikiProject Computing, you are taking articles away from that assessment system, unless if a merge of the Windows assessment system is proposed into the Computing assessment.  An example of what that merge would be like is located in WP:USRD/A, where multiple tags such as U.S. Roads WikiProject, Pennsylvania State Highway WikiProject, and U.S. Interstate Highway WikiProject use the same system.  [ I have been in this situation before when I have had to remove redundant tags].  I feel your pain, but it it best to keep both tags there until an acceptable agreement can be reached. ( [ →] zel  zany  - review) 03:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above, there's nothing wrong with both tags, it's simply stating which two wikiprojects the article is part of. You don't need to make a big deal over this, it's the way the assessment works, until an agreement can be reached to change the way it works. --  J A 10  Discuss • Edits 04:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just about every WikiProject Computing tag that was added to articles on Microsoft Windows was done in haphazard fashion by a bot, without any discussion. WikiProject Microsoft Windows has a talk page, but it wasn't used to discuss the issue beforehand.  For cripes sake, the same bot run tagged Mechagodzilla!  Why?  The whole situation is just bizarre.  Furthermore, no sensible, logical reason has been put forth for duplicating assessment efforts, and sorry if this offends people, but "it's there now so please don't mess with it" is not a sensible, logical reason.  If someone feels this is a good idea, they're welcome to explain why assessment efforts should be duplicated between parent/child WikiProjects that have otherwise been separate efforts up to this point, and I'll probably get behind it.  -/- Warren 22:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * …and there's no reason why these assessment systems shouldn't be merged, either. Either it's that or it's the Windows project owning the talk page, as with [ this]. ( [ →] zel  zany  - review) 23:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Vishwin60. If you want to change the way the assessment works, talk it over at the wikiproject, but you need to WP:COOL and stop personal attacking other users. --  J A 10  Discuss • Edits 05:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This looks like a fair concern. Maintaining an article under multiple directly-related articles IMO is a waste of (human) resources. When an article is better described as something more specific han being computing related, its better scoped by a more specific Wikiproject. When something more specific is already there why trouble a more generic project. That would remove duplicated efforts from all Wikipeojects. May be we should formally discuss this at a central location with a view to drawing up a guideline to unify assessment systems (or specializing a parent project's guideline for use in descendant projects). This classification would also help in rationalizing the article load the parent project comes under. --soum talk 09:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) If all you guys are going to contribute to the discussion are vague accusations of "owning articles" and "personal attacks", then I'm going to ignore you and carry on with improving the encyclopedia in a way I feel makes logical sense, and is in keeping with how other WikiProjects divvy up work. Please do let us know if there is an actual discussion about assessment systems that will be of interest to WikiProject Microsoft Windows, on the project's talk page. As far as my talk page is concerned, this discussion is over. -/- Warren 14:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the encyclopedia is not about you. Besides that, I am going to implement something on WikiProject Microsoft Windows so that WikiProject Computing won't have to be placed on talk pages.  Let me know if this is a sensible compromise. ( [ →] zel  zany  - review) 17:21, 10 June 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 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Windows Picture and Fax Viewer
You don't know Wang Imaging? It's a program with similar functions in Windows 95 / NT 4.0.--202.77.13.1 04:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Leopard
Make sure you get the other two images, as they're from Apple.com as well. Great work dude, I like all the work you do on Windows stuff on wikipedia; very interesting that you were so worried over the OS X article. Thanks again though for keeping up on things! meow Whitneykitty 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, thanks... operating systems are an area of real interest for me so I want to see Wikipedia do well here, no matter which OS it is -- though I tend to like the "new" stuff the best, hence my interest in Vista, Server 2008 and OS X Leopard. Please feel free to jump in and help!  There's a really good group of editors working on articles in this area (and while Nja247 and I may disagree on image use, I unreservedly include him in that) but there's still so much to be done. -/- Warren 17:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My take on the issue is at Talk:Mac OS X v10.5 --soum talk 17:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Windows Neptune Desktop.jpg
I am just making sure you're being fair and partial here. However, according to you, images pulled from websites, even if screenshots, violate policy because when you click the "upload file" button, Wikipedia clearly states "Do not upload images found on websites or on an image search engine. They will be deleted." However, you added fair use rationale to this image, rather than removing it due to copyright violation? What gives? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Leopard_Desktop.png
I see you added a no rationale tag to this image. You mentioned on the Leopard talk page that one image would be acceptable, so why not take a moment and add the rationale yourself? You seem to have investigated this issue more thoroughly, and by you doing it yourself there would be a proper rationale and the issue as a whole would be resolved. Just a thought. I posted a similar comment on the Mac OS X v10.5 talk page. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I left a note on the uploader's talk page to add the rationale to. It's really the uploder's responsibility to do this, and it's a good habit for all uploaders of fair-use images to be in. -/- Warren 20:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What value does Image:Windows 3.11.PNG add to the article?
It displays elements already present at the top screenshot. It uses a custom color scheme, thus inadequately representing the product. It claims to illustrate Windows for Workgroups, but nothing in the screenshot is specific to Windows for Workgroups; it might be a screenshot of regular Windows 3.1 just as well.

That's why I took the liberty to replace it. --tyomitch 08:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Screenshots of operating systems that aren't intended to demonstrate a specific feature should show the default desktop without any additional applications; an exception is usually made for Windows Explorer since a major part of the shell. A cluttered desktop hinders what we are trying to accomplish by providing a screenshot, and we need to try to keep things as simple as possible.  -/- Warren 08:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) A desktop with a custom color scheme is anything but the default desktop.
 * 2) Desktops of Windows and WfW are identical, so what's the point in having two identical screenshots?
 * 3) Most OS screenshots, even in the infoboxes of their respective articles, show default applications as well. See e.g. Kubuntu, BeOS, Windows 2.0 and many others. --tyomitch 08:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If there's no difference between the Windows 3.1 and 3.11 desktops that can be readily demonstrated using a screenshot, then we shouldn't have a separate screenshot for it. Please review the non-free content policy and note section 3 (a) specifically; it is expected that we use as little non-free content as possible, and section 8, where non-free media is expected to contribute significantly to the understanding of an article.  Showing the help reader for the TCP/IP capabilities in 3.11 is really stretching the bounds of fair-use, because it doesn't really demonstrate anything that can't easily be described in text.  As for screenshots of other operating systems, every example you've found has a counter-example: Mac OS X, Windows Vista, Windows 2000, GNOME, Mac OS 8 to name a few.  Screenshots of things like Windows 2.0 are really hard to come by, so we have to live with the screenshots as they are, but it's not ideal.


 * It's really important that non-free screenshots only include stuff that is being discussed in the article. A good solution would be to write some more content into the article that describes (in detail) the things that are being shown.  Talk about included applications with that version of the OS, user interface features that are newly introduced or unique, put up a screenshot beside that text, and make sure that screenshot has a fair-use rationale which justifies its inclusion in the encyclopedia.  It's a lot of extra work, but that's what we are expected to do.  -/- Warren 15:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My motivation when composing my screenshot was:
 * WfW differs from regular Windows 3.1 in improved network capabilities (that's mentioned in the text). I couldn't have put many network apps in one screenshot, so I opened the help file common for all the WfW new apps as an illustration for all those new apps at once.
 * Microsoft provided an add-on TCP/IP pack that was only available for WfW 3.11, which is another feature that makes WfW different from regular Windows (and it's also mentioned in the text). This pack doesn't include GUI apps, so I considered the help file being most illustrative of the pack's capabilities, again.
 * Of all the networks apps present in WfW, I chose winpopup to be the most interesting, so I put it in the tiny remaining free space in the background. This particular app isn't mentioned in the article on Windows 3.1x, but I can put the same image into the article on winpopup to justify its fair use.
 * I don't see how a screenshot of a customized empty desktop can be any more reasonable application of fair-use than mine.
 * Also, for the record, Mac OS 8 displays a web browser, which is hardly an integral part of its shell. As for more examples: RISC OS, NEXTSTEP, IRIX, AmigaOS, System 7 all show cluttered desktops, too. (As if that mattered.) --tyomitch 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing to note: the screenshot in Windows 2000 had once been replaced with a screenshot displaying running applications; and it had been reverted not because it was cluttered, but because the screenshot was taken from a site permitting non-commercial use only. It follows that there are other people preferring "cluttered" desktops over empty ones; I have to conclude that there's no evidence of any accepted guidelines telling that the screenshots "should show the default desktop without any additional applications". --tyomitch 14:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Team Foundation Server
I forked off the TFS section in VSTS to its own article. Hope that is okay with you. I am planning significant expansion of the TFS article and TFS integration with VS in the VSTS article. I thought keeping TFS stuff in TFS article and the integration stuff (integrated management UI in VSTS) in the VSTS article is the most logical arrangement. What do you think? --soum talk 05:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure... I wasn't planning on updating the article much until the next version comes out (which is probably another 6 months away), since there will be a bunch more to say about TFS at that point. The other part is figuring out how much goes in the main Visual Studio article, and how much goes in the VSTS article... though, there will also be more to say about VSTS at that point too, I guess.  Unless, of course, the marketing wizards at MS decide to make our job as encyclopedia writers a bit more of a pain by renaming everything yet again. ;-)  -/- Warren 06:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

??
You added the WikiProject Microsoft Windows tag to several image talk pages such as Image_talk:Windows_Longhorn_Build_3683.png. These are images not articles. 72.91.234.57 06:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * .... and? -/- Warren 13:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Adminship nom
Would you like one? Now? --soum talk 13:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not really all that interested in doing administrator tasks... thanks, though. -/- Warren 15:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As you wish, sir :) If you happen to change your mind sometime in the future, I will be glad to nominate you. :) C u l8r. --soum talk 16:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Ooohh... So that's what it was. And I was wondering why Soum's talk page had a |} at the top. :-) — Alex(U 06:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the revert. :) --soum talk 07:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows --> Windows?
Hey Warrens - looks like you are still around after all this time :):). Anyway, what do you think about this move? Accoding to Microsoft's page it is just Windows and even all the logos say Windows now... the Windows article has a bit of history though so you'd probably need an admin to help out. RN 04:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting question... I'm a bit hesitant to go ahead with that because there's a lot of (real-world) history around the name "Microsoft Windows", and there's a lot of conflicting evidence around whether the name really has changed to simply, "Windows". We could dig up examples and counter-examples all day (e.g. typing "ver" at a Vista command prompt says "Microsoft Windows", and looking at the "About" in Notepad shows the Windows Vista logo in large print, but underneath says "Microsoft Windows".  Whether Microsoft's web site minimises the use of the word "Microsoft" is a simple copy-editing decision or a change in underlying policy is hard to say.  -/- Warren 13:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hasnt it been like this, since, maybe inception of Windows? They have used Windows and Microsoft Windows interchangably in the documentation. --soum talk 13:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I guess it is rather ambiguous. The main logo does say just "Windows" though. Thanks Warrens :). RN 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

On the crusade against cluttered desktops
Image:Windows 3.1 (customized colour scheme).png has been added to the article today. Now be consistent and delete it in the same way as you deleted mine. --tyomitch 05:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. In the future, do it yourself -- you're aware of the non-free content policy, and you're expected to follow it. -/- Warren 13:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)