User talk:Warren/0812

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Microsoft Windows family / Azure

Actually Azure is the operating system. Azure Services is the service platform built upon it. See [1]- "Windows Azure is a cloud services operating system". So I've put it back. --Blowdart | talk 09:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page; we're not going to agree on this one; might I suggest if you feel it's not notable then start a merge and open it for discussion, or take it to a prod? --Blowdart | talk 22:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Redirected again? That's a contentions move; seriously propose a merge rather than act unilaterally. Especially as the Azure template has a separate entry for the fabric layer. --Blowdart | talk 17:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not a contentious move. Windows Azure is not a distinct topic from Azure Services Platform. That you continue to fight this, without providing ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL to the contrary, makes me wonder whether you actually give a shit about doing the best thing for the encyclopedia... it's not like you've actually contributed any research effort or content to these articles, so I have some serious doubts that you're arguing this from a position of knowledge and fact. Warren -talk- 17:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Tosh; it's treated as an OS on the Microsoft FAQ page, what more do you want? Microsoft have called it an OS. You continue to ignore that simple fact. And changing it to a redirect whilst ignoring the Azure template is ridiculous too. Whilst I'll agree it's not an OS you can buy, it's still an OS.
Should we take it to a 3rd party? --Blowdart | talk 17:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
That Microsoft describes it as an operating system doesn't mean it gets its own article. Whether there is a template is beside the point -- the template is certainly premature. Is there enough content to justify an article? No. Is it something that can be completely and accurately described as a topic distinct from Azure Platform Services? No, because it IS the Azure Platform Services, or at least, it is a component thereof. It's also pre-release software, with no public release, and the amount of information that's available is still pretty minimal. We don't need several articles on a single product unless it's judged to be an extremely large piece of software with a lot to describe. Windows 7 qualifies; Azure Services Platform does not.
Now at this point, I've told you everything you need to know, more than once, and you're still arguing. I've told you that you aren't contributing any research, and all you come back with is, "but there's a template!"... that's not good enough. You have to demonstrate that this is a distinct topic, and that there is enough information available to justify its own article. Whether you need a third party to tell you this or not is up to you. Warren -talk- 05:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
And you aren't arguing? That's veering into POV. I've already suggested a merge proposal, or 3rd party opinions/mediation and you continue to force your own view onto the subject. Microsoft call it an OS; it should, in my opinion stand alone. Using the arguement that there's not enought content rules out every single stub article; are you going to start redirecting those? It's obvious we aren't going to agree on this, hence my proposals for a merge discussion or a 3rd party opinion but you insist on going your own way and then you have the nerve to try and push it onto me that I'm being bloody minded when I'm trying to offer alternatives. --Blowdart | talk 10:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You have to demonstrate that there is enough information for this to be a distinct topic, and that information needs to appear in the article, or I will continue reverting this article forever. "Microsoft calls it an operating system therefore it must be a separate article" is not a valid answer that in and of itself adheres to Wikipedia's manual of style guidelines; the issue here is whether Windows Azure as a topic can be describes as something distinct from Azure Services Platform. As I've said before -- and I'm speaking as an expert on Windows here -- it just isn't. The fact that you both disagree with this, and also refuse to provide any content that proves otherwsie, suggests to me that you frankly don't know what you're talking about, and that you're arguing because you like arguing instead of arguing in favour of a better, more readable, more understandable encyclopedia. You'd actually be writing content in the articles if that was the case.
I've been editing Windows-related articles for nearly three years now, so I tend to believe that I have a good handle on what's going to work as a single article, and what's going to work as multiple articles. We're here to make this topic UNDERSTANDABLE for people; for most topics, we can do this most effectively using one article. I'll give you an example -- we used to have separate articles for each edition of Windows XP, but they've all been rolled into Windows XP editions, which collects everything on the topic into one place and serves as a nice piece of reference material. I also happen to think that almost any Windows enthusiast can learn something from reading that article, because it's all there in one place, instead of being scattered across a pile of articles which few people are likely to read. You can Google for "XP editions" and get one article on the first page of results that covers all fifteen-ish releases of XP.
And that's Windows XP, a much larger and much more important topic than the Azure Services Platform! The principle is well-applied here, too -- if someone Googles for say, "Microsoft Azure" or "azure cloud" or something, we should be able to provide one very good article which covers the whole topic of what Microsoft is doing, why they are doing it, and how they do it. The last thing anybody wants to do when they're trying to wrap their head around a new and unusual concept is to have to jump through multiple articles to understand what is essentially one service. Wikipedia encourages the creation of multiple articles on a single topic only when there is enough content to justify to do so. This is called Wikipedia:Summary style editing, and it's just how we do things. Warren -talk- 17:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You're being disingenuous to completely blame this on me in your edit summaries for your POV pushing. I have, to my mind demonstrated it's a separate topic worthy of at least a stub and have offered to let neutral third parties look at it, something you completely ignore, instead using that as justification that it cannot be right. However given your appearance, to me, at least of such bad faith I really cannot be bothered.
If you were so concerned about making it readable and understandable then you would have moved the other way around; where the services platform itself was listed under what you believe is it's common name, Windows Azure rather than setup a redirect to something people simply are not going to look for as you already appear to acknowledge.
You can chalk this up as a win if you so desire; I'm simple not going to attempt to engage with someone who cannot see another point of view and who ignores suggestions of arbitration. --Blowdart | talk 17:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Censure"

With regard to the Top Gear article, "censure" means "express strong disapproval of". Are you sure you're not confusing it with "censor"? The word "criticism" already appears within the paragraph and it's not good writing style to repeat words (or variants of them) where it can be avoided. :-) Chris 42 (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Censure means something more specific than that -- censuring someone is a formal expression of disapproval, by way of a press release or official statement from an authoritative body; government, judicial, and so on. Top Gear has received plenty of criticism, but what have they been censured for? Warren -talk- 22:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary definition makes no reference to it having to be official. However, since as I said before, "criticism" has already been used in the paragraph I have changed the sentence to reflect the text stated in the source. Chris 42 (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The OED may not, but most other dictionaries do. Wikipedia and Wiktionary follow this premise, too. Also, it is generally more common for Wikipedia to use the word "criticise" than "censure" for this sort of thing. Warren -talk- 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

MinWin

Thanks for your note. Of interest Mary-Jo Foley analyses the statement and indicates that it still isn't clear what Microsoft entirely means by this - there are lingering questions:


Regardless of what is under it all, the key thing for users is, as she says:


I guess if Windows were open source this would have never been a secret in the first place and many developers could have explained what was in it! Closed source remains a mystery ultimately. ;)

- Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Look. Mary Jo Foley still isn't a software developer; she's a journalist that clearly doesn't understand what code refactoring is. You can't "turn off" MinWin because it -is- the core of Windows, as it has evolved over a single path of progression in the last five years. That she continues to fail to understand this is baffling. Warren -talk- 15:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And now, for my special comment

"... article in a broken state," you say, because adding Olbermann's latest "special comment" to the list is delayed slightly? If you had previewed the article, you would have seen that both the comment titles and comment descriptions are advertised as coming straight from [2], not from Olberman's Newshole blog, or from Warren, or from Badmintonhist. I'm not sure that Olby's Prop. 8 comment had even been posted on the requisite website when I checked your edit.
Nothing on a computer takes me only fifteen seconds to do, but even were I a computer whiz, adding material to this particular article, a sycophantic shrine to Olbermann, is the job of his fans, not me. However I do have an interest in making sure that those fans follow their own rules. About three months ago I edited one of those cheerleading MSNBC comment summaries to make it more neutral in tone. It was changed back to the cheerleading version, and the theory presented for doing so on the talk page was that my summary was "orginal research" and that Wikipedia was obligated to use MSNBC's "primary source" descriptions in such a list. I acquiesced, on the condition that this would be done consistently in the article (which it had not been) and that the reader would be clearly apprised of the fact. Hence... the bold type notice at the top of the chart. It was this understanding that you, however inadvertently, violated with your comment-number-40 entry.

One piece of advice before signing off. You're an intelligent individual, almost as intelligent as you think you are. However a few months in charm school might do you a world of good. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson

Hi, I put in a section about Clarkson apologising about somthing on the show following the prostitues comment. It was just showing how unrepentant he was and that he was backing the earlier comment. prunch (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether he was referring to the prostitute situation or not is a matter of opinion. He didn't say it directly on the show. Warren -talk- 23:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


RE: Don't be difficult

I apologise for this incident. However i often find that pages are created with one sentence and then nothing else is added. If you already havent done so, take the notice of the page in question (in which , what page was it?).

Once again i apologise that this has happened, but i try my best to tell which pages are spam and which are under construction. If you are creating a page in this way please consider adding the {{underconstruction}} tag at the top.

Superbar

Why did you revert my edit? Even Microsoft is talking about a superbar and uses it as the working title. So even if its final title will be a different one this information should be mentioned. Don't you want the readers to get this information? --Oli (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Simple answer -- you're wrong. Microsoft doesn't call it a Superbar in any of their presentations. See the relevant talk page for the discussion... my talk page isn't the place to discuss article content. Warren -talk- 04:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Malware Edit

I reversed your removal of the image from the Malware article. The image has been released under GFDL. As the uploader noted:

it was created by spyware researcher Ben Edelman, who released it to me under the terms of the GFDL (in personal communication -- I emailed him and asked for its release, and he granted it). As such, it is licensed to us under the terms of the GFDL. It is not a "fair use image" under Wikipedia's meaning of that term.

Some contributors may erroneously believe that an original screenshot of the interaction of a number of software products may somehow magically fall under the copyright of those software products. However, this is in no way established as fact; it is rather a naive urban legend. The copyright to this image belongs to its creator, who has graciously licensed it for Wikipedia's use under the GFDL. We use it not under fair use, but explicitly under license. --FOo 05:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Benedelman-spyware-blogspot-2a.png If you would like to discuss this, please visit my talk page. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have to disagree, many screenshots and pictures used on wikipedia are going to include copyrighted software, Windows itself, Internet Explorer, ect. You specificly refer to the VMWare logo, which is again in use on Wikipedia, on the VMWare article. In the context of the Malware article, This image does not limit the copyright holder's ability to profit from the original source, nor will it dilute the importance or recognition of the logo in connection with its organization.

This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. IMO, the copyright holder will have no issue with the use of the image on the english Wikipedia, and any issue would have to be taken up with the original owner who released it under GDFL, Ben Edelman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephiroth storm (talk • contribs) 12:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On creation of separate KHTML-WebKit article

I created the history article in order to make it a single source of information regarding the history of the projects due to their being "tied-at-the-hip", so to speak. I thought that my combination of the two histories in one was pretty grammatically continuous, given the continuous criss-cross between the two articles (i.e., having to go to the KHTML article to find out about such-and-such component that was later adapted to WebKit and then ported back to KDE, and vice-versa). If anything, I would recreate the article as History of WebKit, while not removing the majority of content from the main articles. --Toussaint (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a separate article for the history of WebKit, though. Taking one short article and splitting it into two shorter articles does nothing useful; it actually punishes the user for wanting to learn about a topic. I agree that there is a related narrative between the two projects, and they should be prominently linked to eachother both in text and in wikilinks, but there is also plenty of distinctness in the evolution of the two projects. Warren -talk- 17:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

XP Sp4

Why is "nonsensical" know about the upcoming major update of Win XP?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotcr (talk • contribs) 08:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I read the sentence aloud and couldn't really understand what was being said. Warren -talk- 17:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
What did u dont understand?? It says that the SP4 is on development —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotcr (talk • contribs) 17:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox OS version

In the "Template:Infobox OS version" the template "OS cite needed" does'nt work --Sotcr (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Will you check this template?--Sotcr (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Ramu50

Warren, while I'm thankful for the support, comments like this still shouldn't be done. First, (and you know this) two wrongs don't make a right. Second, by going to his level, he has won the argument and you have now encouraged him to continue. Nothing is probably more aggravating to him than when nobody responds to his ranting or when people respond while ignoring him. You have instead given him a source to continue onward. Thanks anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I came here to warn you about your comment to Ramu50, but I see Ricky81682 got to it first. Your response ([3]) to Ricky's measured, polite advice was needlessly rude — and your intemperate response gives some insight into why a troll might find it amusing to torment you. Ramu50's been indefinitely blocked; please just enjoy the peace and quiet rather than trying to get in a few kicks while he's down. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Both the above users have been reminded that their purpose on Wikipedia is to improve the encyclopedia, not to lecture editors on their behaviour towards an indefinitely banned user. Warren -talk- 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

W3C and Internet Explorer box models.png

why not releasing it as a svg? --mabdul 0=* 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone would ask this... :) It's mainly because I don't have the tools or know-how to do it in SVG. Warren -talk- 11:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
oh :p maybe I will upload a converted image next week (I am lerning at that moment how i works in applications...) --mabdul 0=* 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Throw me a frickin' bone here

Please go onto the template talk page and be specific about the changes you need. I can't do a thing with "less organised". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nor are edit summaries a substitute for discussion. We've worked together on articles before; I don't see that it should be any different for templates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, just so you're kept in the loop here, I've raised this at WP:SOFTWARE here, which is about as broadly as I can put it out. If there still isn't dissent there then I'm going to restore the last new versions. I appreciate that you've got issues with them, but this doesn't seem to be shared by anyone else and I think I've given it more than a fair airing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear (current format)

Re section "The Cool Wall" simply documenting what's been broadcast on the show is "original research" because it can't be verified any another editor's checking the source. On the other hand if you referenced particular sections of particular DVDs, in principle another editor who owns, rents or borrows the DVD(s) can check that the statements are supported by these. --Philcha (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhh.... what? Please take a bit of time to more closely study the difference between lack of sourcing (WP:V), and the publishing of synthesis (WP:OR) before taking the time to lecture someone else on it. The text doesn't advance a viewpoint or opinion, therefore it is simply a sourcing problem. That said, instead of simply complaining about the section, I'm going to take the time to improve it by tracking down some sources. I'm sure you agree that that's the only way the encyclopedia improves. Warren -talk- 23:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Good hunting! --Philcha (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

template:externalimage

can you completely revert the documentation so that it's only about externalimage because currently it's very confusing because it's about external media and externalimage. And last but not least, I want to revert the move if the consensus in the discussion remains. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Preview Version Criteria

I think the policy for what constitutes a Preview Release/Version needs to be better articulated on the Template:Infobox OS version page in order to prevent such disagreements in the future. Since it's your template, I think you should be the one to start the vote or procedure to determine the criteria, since you know the template best. --Resplendent (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm expecting too much when I hope that people will read the documentation for the template? The documentation has said for, what, the better part of two years now? that the preview_version is meant for builds that are released by the company, not leaks or merely "shown" builds. Warren -talk- 02:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

W7 Screenshot

Plsease check the talk page, becouse I already put why the new screenshot should be accepted.

And I'm sorry for our disagreements  :) Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 02:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And every time I re-edit is becouse i have new arguments, is not becouse i just want to do it --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 02:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Please check the talk page, I'm not who is changing every time the article, but i'm discussing about it and you just dont see it or ignore it --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 02:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


=) I hope that too, and I'm sorry for our little conflict. I will try to not bother you so much :P and I'll try to help as much as I can in the article.
The screenshots are from a friend of Windows7center.com and they gime me permission for use in Wikipedia, I have a new one, I think this is fine. If there is any problem, let me know.
Good Day - Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 20:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the new parameter, it provides the right information for avoid any confution, but maybe a lower size is better, cuz' I think that is distracting... But anyway, I found very good ur idea
And about the resolution, what is needed is a new one in a lower resolution? or the current one can be resized? Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 01:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
So what do u think about resize the text of the new parameter?? Ouh, and Merry Christmas ;) Sot Excuse my English (talk me) 08:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Microkernel page

Nice cleanup job! heiser (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In Rainbows

The information was unsourced and the description the editor gave of the album in the lead not only didn't match the article body, but was original research based on personal POV. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

      | X |/!\(This is to make sure Warren sees this)Jasper Deng (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You should know better than to be uncivil and use profanity. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If this behavior continues, I'm going to list you on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Josh, people have been threatening to do that for years, but it never pans out. The basic reality is this: The entirety of User:Jasper Deng's contributions to Wikipedia involve engaging in arguments with, and pointing out errors made by other editors -- he does absolutely zero work on the encyclopedia itself. I don't have any regard (nor should I be expected to) for people that come to the encyclopedia with the express purpose of criticising the work we do, but make no good-faith effort to make improvements. I work far too hard on this thing to have to be expected to take that kind of abuse. Warren -talk- 10:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
      | X |/!\ THERE YOU GO AGAIN WITH YOUR PROFANITY! I MOSTLY MAKE SURE ARTICLES MAKE SENSE AND DO SO BY CRITICIZING EDITS THAT I FEEL THAT PUT THE ARTICLES IN WORSE CONDITION. I LIKE MICROSOFT
      WINDOWS, AND THAT IS WHY I AM VERY ACTIVE ON THE WINDOWS 7 PAGE. YOUR EDITS IN FACT ANGER MANY PEOPLE INCLUDING JOSH! I DO NOT ALWAYS ADD NEW CONTENT, AND THAT IS THE TRUTH EVERYWHERE.
      THE THREAT BY JOSH IS NOW FOR REAL, AND YOU'VE JUST PUSHED IT TOO FAR. JOSH IS WELL RESPECTED; PLEASE DO NOT CRITICIZE HIM!!Jasper Deng (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

      | X |/!\[X] WHY ARE YOU USING MORE PROFANITY AGAINST ME AND JOSH ON YOUR WIKIQUETTE ALERTS?! YOU KNOW YOU ARE IN BIG TROUBLE ALREADY. THIS WILL ONLY MAKE IT WORSE!Jasper Deng (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear move

Cheers. Looks like your examples put this over the top. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Image delete

Hello :)

The image File:Win7 build6956.png has been deleted becouse of NFCC 4, but, this criteria applies if they give me the permission to upload the image??

Nice day - Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 04:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


Meet the Press

Okay... seriously? Click here and let's have a look at Meet the Press's home page.

Note that the name of the show given in the heading, the "About us" section, the page's title, the transcript for the last two shows (here and here), the show details for the last two shows (here and here), as well as press releases related to Gregory's becoming the moderator. They all say the show's name is "Meet the Press". At no point, ANYWHERE in the text, does the show get identified as "Meet the Press with David Gregory". If you plan on arguing that the logo reads "Meet the Press with David Gregory", consider that, based on the fact that this particular phrase appears nowhere else on the web site, that it's simply a title card that identifies the moderator's name. In other words, it's "Meet the Press", with David Gregory. Even the logo image's alternate text reads "Meet the Press".

In the future, please do some basic research before aruging something so very easily proven to be untrue. It wastes everybody's time. Thanks. Warren -talk- 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it is not my intention to be mean and hostile, but you just opened a big can of worms with this.
First of all, you live in Canada. For all I can tell, you probably do not have Meet the Press where you live, let alone watch it. Secondly unlike you, I don’t go around editing articles I have absolutely no knowledge about. I actually watch the show on Sundays. When Tim Russert was still alive, the show AND ARTICLE was called “Meet the Press with Tim Russert.” When he died, it was temporality called “Meet the Press.” Finally when the new permanent moderator was named, everything changed, Buddy. The title card that is shown the moment the show goes on air every Sunday morning. That is the same title card that is shown on this article. The website, which is also the link you provided me. ALL OF THEM say “Meet the Press with David Gregory.” At the very beginning of the show, the announcer say “From NBC News in Washington, this is Meet the Press with David Gregory.” Third, the “about us” section, and all those links that you provided me, those are not relevant sources. I don’t know where on earth you got that idea.
You really think you can just go to any article you wish and put whatever you can pull out of your rear. You are no better than those obnoxious vandals who go around putting a bunch of nonsense on any wikipedia article for nothing more than pure amusement. I’m not a fan of David Gregory, but at least I will put credit where credit is due, unlike you who wishes to cause controversy. You tell me to do “some basic research before aruging something so very easily proven to be untrue. It wastes everybody's time.” No offense, I look at that statement, and I laugh my butt off. Everything considered, you really made yourself look very unintelligent with that last remark. Knowing that you have a history of run-ins with other wikipedia editors who have a bone to pick with you, why the heck should I listen to a word you say. Why don’t all of us reputable editors a favor, and do some REAL research before making yourself look like a particular part of a donkey in front of everybody.
On and one last thing, Merry Christmas. S3884h (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow... I'm astounded that you have the gumption to come to my talk page and lie straight to my face, while asserting that somehow because my user page identifies me as Canadian, I'm not qualified to edit (or even know about) a topic. You need to understand a few things:
1) Meet the Press is broadcast in Canada on NBC, as it is in the United States (TV Guide Canada listings for Sunday morning). MSNBC is also available in Canada on top-tier cable and satellite offerings (Rogers, e.g.). It's also available from MSNBC's web site (and via iTunes) as a podcast, and yes, that podcast is available in Canada. There also used to be a MSNBC Canada which broadcast Meet the Press.
2) Me personally, I've been watching Meet the Press on and off since 2000. After watching Russert's role in covering the 2000 Presidential Election, I decided I wanted to follow this guy some more. By the time 2008 started I was watching every week, and I watched MSNBC's coverage of Russert's death in its entirety.
3) But now the important thing as far as Wikipedia is concerned: Neither of #1 or #2 matter, because Wikipedia operates on the principle of reliable sources and verifiability, not stupid things like whether or not you're from the "correct" country or are "qualified" to write on a topic. Newspaper archives and the Internet have plenty of historical and analytical information about Meet the Press, and ((I can't believe I have to tell anyone this)) we get precisely the same Internet in Canada as we do in the United States (modulo advertising), and our newspapers routinely report on United States news, and on things that have taken place on Meet the Press and other Sunday morning political talk shows.
4) The edit history of "Meet the Press with Tim Russert" shows pretty clearly that at no time has it ever been anything other than a redirect to Meet the Press. The move log for "Meet the Press" pretty clearly shows that the article was never called "Meet the Press with Tim Russert". That name has been used in the Infobox, but it's been incorrect all this time. It happens.
5) NBC, in their press releases and transcripts, pretty much always refer to the show as "Meet the Press", regardless of who was moderator at the time. There are occasional uses of "Meet the Press with Tim Russert" as a show name, but those are few and far between, and are vastly outnumbered by the number of references to the show being titled "Meet the Press".
6) The MSNBC web site is very clear in that the name of the show is "Meet the Press". You're outright lying when you assert that it says "Meet the Press with David Gregory". You know you're lying. I know you're lying. I can produce screenshots that back up what I'm saying; you can't. I wouldn't be making this assertion if I couldn't prove I'm right.
7) The reason, the -only- reason I get into a lot of arguments with people is because there are quite a number of people who come to Wikipedia to push their pet causes or to cause trouble, and really take a great deal offense when they get push-back on that. It's part of the drudgery of being a regular editor across a wide variety of articles, something that, let's face it, you don't have much experience with. Your contributions to the Deal Or No Deal articles are great and well appreciated by all, but that work, and a dozen edits on the Meet the Press article is very nearly the sum total of your editing experience here. Then there's me -- I've edited about 5,000 different pages on Wikipedia; you're at 124.
8) I'd love to hear the line of sound, logical reasoning that can equate an editor who in three years has made over 17,000 edits to 5,000 pages, has never been blocked, has had articles they've worked become some of the encyclopedia's most commonly-read pages, and has been a supporter and insistent enforcer of Wikipedia's content policies, with being a "vandal". What a hoot.
Oh, and don't think that this edit of yours where you changed the lead sentence of the Sarah Palin article to add "who I want to have hot passionate anal sex with", the day before the 2008 Presidential Election, hasn't gone unnoticed. Between that and your assertions that what a television's own web site says the name of the show is not relevant... is this a a sign of the quality of contributions you plan on bringing to the encyclopedia in the future? Because frankly, we'd be better off without. Warren -talk- 20:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Uh what? S3884h (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Windows API

It is a fact that a tiny amount of programs use the Native API - in fact, on the Native API page it says: "Some rootkits make use of the Native API to hide their presence from malware detection software.[2]" (that statement has a source). Saying "some" in that case is not a weasel word since we aren't saying "some people say...". It is impossible to state how many there are since we don't know how many programs have been written that use the Native API. How would you state the fact that some programs use the Native API? The truth is, the statement "All Windows programs must interact with the Windows API" is false. --wj32 t/c 22:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And, on the Native API page, it says "... a few components, such as the Client/Server Runtime Subsystem are implemented using the Native API, as they are started early enough in the Windows NT Startup Process that the Windows API is not available yet.". This means that "All Windows programs must interact with the Windows API" is false. --wj32 t/c 22:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and another source: [4]. So, will you let me correct the misinformation if I add the source? --wj32 t/c 22:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
As long as a reliable source backs up such a statement, it'll be fine. We really need to avoid adding to the use of unattributed, weasel-worded statements on Wikipedia, and unattributed statements in general. Thanks. Warren -talk- 07:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Xmas!

Haven't really edited lately but see you still are :). Hope things are going well - merry chrismas! RN 22:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Warren - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Warren/0812&oldid=1139978015"