User talk:Warren/0612

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

My understanding is that, whatever the wording, the purpose of putting the template there in notoriously spam-prone articles is to alert readers and editors to watch out for it and remove it. Daniel Case 06:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Update is not the same as Windows Update, nor is it a sequel for. Can you please branch the two articles?—The preceding

Thanks for your comments and your last words of advice. I ought to confide in you that usually when I slap a tag on an article I know the metapidians there will be alarmed, but in my view lead paragraphs are getting out of control here on the whole. Very often I don't know enough about the subject to wikify it and am simply prodding the bear out of hibernation kind of thing, not vilifying it. Some editors see no problem with their long intros like you with microsoft, which is OK in this case, but I would say most long intros are not, conformity to WP:LEAD is ignored totally. In fact the WP:LEAD page has very little participance for a guideline page. I encourege you to join our new wikiproject [1] to keep keep an eye on us, we will make mistakes too. Thanks again. FrummerThanThou 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You said: "If you're going to take it upon yourself to do something like this, then at least have the courtesy to come up with a reasoning that's actually true. Your work with identifying copyvio images has been very helpful, but please be more careful."

When I removed the image from that page, there was not a detailed fair-use rationale for the image's use on

History of Microsoft Windows. This may be the case now, I have not checked. --Yamla 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have started a new discussion about this template on its talk page. As an active contributor to this page, I would ask that you please join in. Thanks a lot, and I look forward to starting to discuss this template with you. --W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 01:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

...an official-sounding policy-type thing like "Wikipedia is not for something you invented in a forum one day" -- like you said on AFD. Actually we do, it's called

Why have u deleted my earmaster subpage?
I didn't get banned. By the way if you believed that, well you ought to have delete all my subpages as well. -- Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipediawanna Talk? 05:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting fair-use images on user-space articles is specifically disallowed by Wikipedia policy. Also, your block history shows that you were blocked indefinitely at the time of my deleting those pages.

Warren 05:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I revert your edit of the article back to me, because my edit is not a bully vandalism. I'm just adding the unsigned visual style screenshot in Windows XP. I, not a user vandal, I contribute some Windows-related articles and Kids Next Door-related articles. I hope you enjoy editing in Wikipedia -- also, feel free to comment to me. — Jigs41793 ^Talk 10:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I protected both versions with a pointer to deletion review if anyone wants to reverse the deletions. Vegaswikian

Hi, WP:LEAD is a WP policy, please see the template on the

Guidelines aren't policies. If you're not clear about the difference, read

Warren 18:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I've rephrased the message. Cheers. frummer 20:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the contributor has vandalised some articles in the past, and the screenshot is obviously KND related, but it is also a valid demonstration of the UXTHEME.dll patch to change the Windows interface, and it demonstrates how this can be done with a Vista Basic lookalike skin for XP. Until someone else supplies a screenshot of the same thing without the KND reference, it should stay - it's still related. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And you have proof those IP vandals are the same person? Checkuser-type proof? Blimey, a real crusade... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the term a crusade rather than The Crusades. As in, "of being a righteous campaign, usually to "root out evil", or to fight for a just cause". I do agree with the sentiment, but I thought the initial action was a bit ruthless. I'll be on my way then. Good luck, soldier! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It was no problem at all. I have reverted many user pages in the past. It is one of the things I focus on in recent changes patrol. Have a nice week. --

Just wondering if it should be "1991 to 1996". Gates still mentions Cairo in his talk at the 1996 PDC[2] albeit very briefly, Microsoft still talks about Cairo in its 1996 press releases[3][4] and various other sources are still talking about Cairo in 1996.[5][6] I'm not really aware of any source that says when the Cairo teams at Microsoft really broke up or moved to other projects though, so I'm wondering if you have better sources than me. AlistairMcMillan 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the copyright info on Image:Aat_sample.JPG. I haven't done much with images and am never sure of what licensing to choose :) --Bookgrrl ^holler/looksee 23:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I went to the template you said was deleted, and it said "Use The Raven's Apprentice userbox instead" (or something like that). I checked the userboxes he/she had, and I didn't know that he/she had a Windows XP box. Sorry! HyperSonicBoom 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What does "db-repost" mean anyway? HyperSonicBoom 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We've had our squabbles over

Hi. I was wondering if you had any interest in being an administrator on the English Wikipedia. If so let me know and I'll fill out what's neessary and nominate you. Or if you don't want to be an admin let me know too so I don't waste your time. --Wizardman 06:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left wikipedia. --

Done. Thanks for pointing that out.

Warren 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your idea to merge the Service Packs and Lifecycle sections of the Windows 2000 article is a good idea. Do you think that I should do this now, or put it up for discussion on the Windows 2000 talk page? Please respond on my talk page. I just wanted to be sure I am taking the right action. Thanks for your time.

Thank you for your support at Unused highway. The page now looks ungodly awful with all the sources, but it's what the pharaoh ordered :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I've posted some answers to some common questions about Windows Home Server to the discussion thread on my Channel9 video http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=270965.

Please feel free to utilize these to expand the WHS article as you see fit.

Charlie Kindel General Manager, Windows Home Server

this. You folks were sniffing up the wrong tree. Best regards // FrankB 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this comment (And I will revert all your changes until you obtain the necessary consensus. Quit wasting your time with this bullshit.), please be more

I would also like a little civility. My edit was done in good faith, I believe it has some merit. Your response of ... oh, and blaming vista for people buying computers is stupid http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Vista&oldid=110256152 I'm adding a discussion to the Vista talk page peterl 06:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Declined?

Hi.. I find that

Just to say hi. I really like your butwhy article. Very interesting. I really feel a lot of wikipedia articles are not having neutral tones with many Microsoft-related articles and I have to say I feel less of the Wikipedia as a whole because of this. It is just frustrated to see how open-source minded people turned out to be so "closed" on it while on another hand Microsoft seems to be "more open" --Jutiphan | Talk - 06:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the kind words. I'm happy to have been a part in the ongoing march towards higher quality in the Windows-related articles (and OS X, to an extent), but there's still so much to be done! Don't let the state of some of the articles get you down... evenness of tone is an extremely difficult thing to accomplish, because almost everyone who comes to Wikipedia to edit has pre-programmed opinions that affect the tone of their contributions. One thing I've noticed, though, is that once a degree of evenness and quality is attained in an article, it becomes pretty resistant to attempts by zealots to subvert it into something ugly and POV-laden. We can accomplish this high quality across the whole spectrum of operating system articles, even if it takes a few more years. We're not in a big hurry. :-)

I'll have a look at

Warren 07:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I may just as well try to fix it myself --Jutiphan | Talk - 16:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple are paying people to write positive articles? AlistairMcMillan 04:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading