User talk:Warren/0905

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.

Revision of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

Windows Vista User

Warren with all do respect, the show is named 1600 Pennsylvania Ave with David Shuster which is shown not only when the show comes on but also on the shows website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luedhup2 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Don't be confused by what the show's graphic says; graphic designers don't decide the names of shows. The graphic is telling you both the name of the show, and its host. If you read, say, the press release announcing Shuster's selection as the host of the show, they put the words "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" in quotes. Same thing with the transcript for the most recent show. You are also welcome to check your local TV listings, the source code to the 1600 Pa. Ave home page (which does not contain the words "with David"), and any number of other reliable sources (e.g. New York Times), which is the only true criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Warren -talk- 11:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Warren, one, im not dissrespecting you in anyway whats so ever, and two if you went to MSNBC website, and the shows website you'll see the title —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luedhup2 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... please read what I said above. Statements like "If you went to the MSNBC site", when I quite clearly and explicitly linked to that very site, right above where you typed this, don't help. Warren -talk- 20:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert for User:S3884h

Thanks for the heads up. But let's leave Penelope Cruz out of it! ;) By the way, if I'm now Canadian, do I have to say "eh?" alot, drink Molson, and watch ice hockey? Gerardw (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, he's been blocked for 24 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:S3884h_reported_by_User:Gerardw_.28Result:_No_violation_24_hours.29 Gerardw (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Windows 7

Hey, I'm in the Win7 beta. :-) Happy New Year! — Alex Khristov 21:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

AutoRun - thanks

Well, thank you for rating my article. I'm rather pleased to get such a good rating. By the way, if you are an admin, would you be able to advise on how I can get the name changed from Autorun to AutoRun? I don't want to be accused of wasting time by simply resubmitting to Requested Moves, although that would be my first port of call. I cannot delete the redirect page... Carveone (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Windows7Desktop.png)

You've uploaded File:Windows7Desktop.png, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft is a company, not software

It's a comment you left when you reverted a number of edits and moved Category:Microsoft history from History of software to History of computing. Your comment is, of course, true, but it's justification for your edits escapes me. Looking at Category:Software, the top of the software tree, it states "This category is about all aspects of computer software ...". Possibly when looking at category:Software you missed that. Or possibly it means something different to you than it does to me. Software has a number of subcategories. Besides the obvious: Category:Application software, Category:Software engineering, etc., there is Category:Software by company, Category:Software companies. Possibly you missed those as well. There is even Category:Software industry, missed also? A subcat of software is Category:Internet history where you'll find History of Google - another company, not software; did you miss that too?

It may be that you are improving the Software category by removing companies from it. That is, after all how Wikipedia improves, each editor making their contribution, day by day. So, if that what you are doing, then my text above gives you some guidance as to other areas requiring change.

If, on the other hand, that was not your intent then, even though "Microsoft is a company, not software", would you please put things back as you found them. Thanks 69.106.246.15 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Creating Category:History of Microsoft software is probably the appropriate solution to bridge the two topics (software, and Microsoft) together. Go ahead and do this if you like; you will need a user account to do this, however. Warren -talk- 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The "soft" in Microsoft is software. Yes, they have a few bits of hardware with their logo on them, but that is not what characterizes the company. Why is Category:Microsoft history not appropriate in the software category tree? 71.135.187.78 (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Because "Microsoft" is a company, not software. I have a DVD here with the Windows 7 Beta burned to it. That DVD doesn't contain "Microsoft", it contains "Microsoft software", which is a join of two topics: Microsoft the company, and computer software. Microsoft is a corporate entity with some 90,000 employees and a historical narrative that goes well beyond a description of the software they have released. Software is something that we use on computers. Those are the categories. The same principle applies when you add the word "history". If we have a number of articles that document both the history of a company, and the history of software, then it makes sense to create a single category that groups all these together.

But let's be honest here, just about every article about something Microsoft has done (software or otherwise) could be shoehorned into a "Microsoft history" category, because every article we have -- several hundred of them -- documents something they've done in the course of history. Windows NT 3.51 documents an aspect of Microsoft's history, as do ASP.NET, Microsoft Visual Studio and QBasic and dozens of others... would they all count for this category? Can you see how this could very quickly turn into a mess? Warren -talk- 09:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

I don't think it's good practice to use edit summaries simply to continue an edit argument, as you seem to have done here by not doing what you state in the edit comment. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Proprietary software

Would love your input on this article, Proprietary software. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann RFC

Per your suggestion, I've initiated an RFC here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In Rainbows

I don't get the point of that template. It's much clearer to simply type the date out conventionally, and in some instances it'll be shorter than typing out the template code. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading it, that really has little relevance to the average Wiki user. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Using edit summaries as a "talk page"

Hi. I noticed you took the liberty of reprimanding me in an edit summary! How unique! And you said leaving no edit summary was unkind! Kill two birds with one stone! In fact, an edit summary was given before the bot reverted it. Sorry.

I hope to work together with you to make Wikipedia a better place. :) --Drinkadrink (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911tm

Template:911tm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. - Noticed you in one of the template's previous afd's.Sloane (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I am honored to award you this Special Barnstar for your input at the AfD for Naked Conversation and being willing and able to do a search and speak up in defense of a notable book. Such due diligence improves Wiki Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

DRV on Image:Windows 7 Action Center.png

Just to let you know, I've referred this image that you have previously edited to WP:DRV for formal review of the recent deletion of more readable versions of the image. Jheald (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I wear diapers. They are Huggies. Do you wear diapers?Justvideo

Windows 7 Editions

Why do you keep adding an "Upgrades" section to the article (especially [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_7_editions&diff=270335174&oldid=269685584 this one])? It is too early to talk about upgrades to Windows 7 and your references are just bogus. I will keep deleting it until it is made official.209.155.146.2 (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What's bogus about the source? Many tech sites are using it. Warren -talk- 01:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I consider any source that is not accompanied by an official Microsoft source bogus. And it is still too early to talk about that. Clean install for XP-I don't think so.209.155.146.2 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh. I see what you're getting at. What we should probably do, then, is disclaim anything from the Tech ARP source with something to the effect of "According to documents obtained and published by technology web site Tech ARP," ... like I said, there are a lot of tech news web sites that are repeating this, and the quality of the information shown in the Tech ARP documents is pretty consistent with how Microsoft goes about things, so I believe it should stay in. That's what WP:V would have us do.

As for the clean install part, well, Vista only supported direct upgrades from XP, not 2000, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that they'll only support direct-upgrading from Vista. The Register contacted Microsoft on the topic of XP -> 7 upgrades, and they responded with “I can confirm that customers will be able to purchase upgrade media and an upgrade license to move from Windows XP to Windows 7 - however, they will need to do a clean installation of Windows 7, ..... This requires the user to back up their data, install Windows 7, re-install the programs and restore their data. For PCs running Windows Vista customers have the option of an in-place upgrade of Windows 7 keeping their data and programs intact or to perform a clean install of Windows 7.”[1] So.... that's that. If Microsoft announces something different in the future, then we can amend the article. Warren -talk- 01:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Microsoft surely is confusing consumers by changing that naming convention, which was different for previous Windows editions. I verified your claims as per this source. Aurista25

Windows Family Tree graphic

Warren, I updated the graphic of Windows Family Tree a few years ago [2], and others have updated it since. There is a mistake on the current one, File:Windows_Family_Tree.svg, that shows SRV03 with an arrow from Windows 2000, and XP forked from 2000. A correct graphic would have 2000 --> XP --> SRV2003, with XP also showing a fork to XPSP2, and a double-headed arrow between XPSP2 and SRV2003, with that codebase being the start of Vista/SRV2008. I am too busy to revisit this, but you are still active in this area. Can you find someone with a graphic editor to fix this? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

User:Illegal Operation did the most recent one. I'll leave him a note.... good catch! Warren -talk- 00:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have realized that that .svg image is hard to edit which is why I converted to .png here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_Family_Tree_%28i%29.png. Feel free to edit image. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, fix is on it's way. Wait a moment. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have fixed it. Warren, thanks for notifying me. I do not want to show XP sp2 otherwise I will have to show it for all the other Windows. Unless, Windows XP R2 exist, I will not show it. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollback in Safari

The fact that the new Safari will make editing of all Wiki articles easier may indeed be OT, but useful nevertheless. I have re-added it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Warren, thanks so much for that explanation of what talk pages are for. As a six year veteran and author of over 1000 new articles, I clearly wouldn't have any idea how to use the wiki properly. I though that the whole idea was to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, but now I see that the slavish following of institutionalized guides who's meaning is unclear is actually much more important. Excellent! So the next time I see you removing content, I'll just 3RR you, right? We wouldn't want any independent thought, after all. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR

I have blocked User:K;;m5m k;;m5m for edit warring and a 3RR violation. K;;m5m k;;m5m performed 4 reverts, you performed 3. 3RR is does not draw a bright line at 3 reverts. Please try to take it to the talk page instead of reverting repeatedly. When an edit is truly bad other editors will also revert. Peace. Chillum 07:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for all your work on computer related articles. I see you have been busy. Chillum 08:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Michael Smerconish

The edit in question likely refers to a carry-over comment from another editor (the suggestion he endorses torture), I merely rearranged it. Feel free to remove it, as I feel it violates BLP as well-- I tried removing it before but someone put it back.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Windows 2003

Hi Wayne

I modified the Windows 2003 page as follows, which you reversed.

Standard Edition

Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition is aimed towards small to medium sized businesses. Standard Edition supports file and printer sharing, offers secure Internet connectivity, and allows centralized desktop application deployment. This edition of Windows will run on up to 4 processors with up to 4 GB RAM. 64-bit versions are also available for the x86-64 architecture (AMD64 and EM64T, called collectively x64 by Microsoft). The 64-bit version of Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition is capable of addressing up to 4 GB of RAM and it also supports Non-Uniform Memory Access (NUMA), something the 32-bit version does not do. The 32-bit version is available for students to download free of charge as part of Microsoft's DreamSpark program.

Can I refer you to the following web pages:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc758523.aspx

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb430827.aspx

which show that the Standard edition only supports 4 Gb RAM, regardless of 32-bit or 64-bit

Do you have different information?

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.116.123 (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes -- support for more than 4GB of physical memory in Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition is supported on x64 systems. See this (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx) ... and this (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb405950.aspx), which is actually linked to from the second link you provided. You could also try doing it yourself, and you'll see it works. ;-) Warren -talk- 14:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the first Microsoft page looks wrong when you look at the others. Steve

I think there may be some confusion caused by older documents on Server 2003's requirements & maximums, because there was no 64-bit version of Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition until 2005. Warren -talk- 18:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann controversies

Warren, if we were creating Olbermann articles in a vacuum, then what you're saying on the Olbermann talk page would have some merit. However, we are not creating them in a vacuum. Take a look, for example, take a good, honest look, at what passes for controversy in the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) article. All seventeen of them are proverbial tempests in teapots, largely manufactured, and of interest to a limited number of political junkies. By that standard Olbermann has been involved in a number of controversies, disputes, conflicts, what have you. The last of the so-called disputes listed in the O'Reilly article is his likening of Helen Thomas to a witch. Did that create more controversy than all of Olbermann's thousands of "worst persons" awards including those to Tony Snow who was fighting a losing battle for his life? Regards Badmintonhist (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that until you wrap your head around the difference between "criticism" and "controversy", we're not going to be able to proceed with anything productive.

Personally, I think that Bill O'Reilly article should be split into two articles, one covering criticism (from Olbermann, Franken, Hart, etc.etc.), and another covering notable controversies. But I'm not really all that interested in working on that; there's too much tension involving that topic and I have plenty of that to keep me busy in computing articles. Warren -talk- 02:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there originally were two articles, but a few years ago they were merged after a long discussion. By the way, your response here is excellent! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just an aside

Since we're getting pretty far off the basic topic of what should or should not be included in the Olbermann article, I'm putting this on your talk page. I don't think that commercial success per se, even in the realm of ideas, makes something "mainstream". Savage has done well commercially in a medium, talk radio, that tends to gravitate toward flamboyance and controversy. Howard Stern has done well (but not done good) in that medium, too, but it would be a stretch to call him "mainstream". Heavily left-leaning filmmakers such as Michael Moore and Oliver Stone have also enjoyed commercial success, but I don't think of them as being mainstream liberals. As for Olby, he's progressively become not so much the liberal version of O'Reilly (who, by comparison, was vastly more even-handed than Olbermann during the last election cycle), but the liberal version of Ann Coulter, expressing vituperative contempt for anyone on the other side of the political divide. But Coulter, at least, is willing to mix it up, face to face, with her political opponents. Olbermann flat out isn't, which is another of his less than appealing traits. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Refs

Just FFR, do please try to avoid outright deletion of named refs that are likely relied upon elsewhere in an article, as happened in this edit. Already fixed it, so just FYI. :) ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sure you were believing yourself to be helpful in suggesting I don't remove references that are used multiple times in the article, surely you appreciate that the link no longer actually contained the information that was being used as a source? Or did you not check this before filing your complaint on my talk page? No, it's okay, you don't need to answer that. We both know you didn't, given that you re-added the link in spite of it quite clearly NOT CONTAINING THE INFORMATION contained in the article. Warren -talk- 04:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It sure was nice talkin' with you, Warren. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Windows Media Player: Merger proposal

Warren,

Hi. I believe you have often contributed to Wikipedia articles like Windows Media Player, Windows Media Player 11 and Windows Media Player 12, haven't you? So, as you may have heard, there is a merger discussion going on: It is proposed to merge Windows Media Player 11 and Windows Media Player 12 articles into Windows Media Player. So, I thought you might like to participate in the discussion, study the proposal reasons and cast your votes. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Windows 7 Action Center - Balloon.png

Thanks for uploading File:Windows 7 Action Center - Balloon.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Your message

Attacking me with profanity and threats isn't going to fix anything. What makes you think we need such intricate detail on an article which should include a main summary of everything about Vista? Re-add the information on the sub-articles; that's what they're made for. Stay civil. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The information you're removing isn't "intricate detail"; it's still a very high-level overview compared with the full story. Perhaps you don't have a full appreciation of this yet, but Windows Vista is a positively massive subject -- the operating system has over 1,000 new features. That's why there are over fifty articles in Category:Windows Vista; it's why we have six articles just devoted to its new features, whereas Mac OS X v10.5 hasn't even merited one such article. You can't just come along and saw off large segment of the summarization of those six articles just because you don't have the necessary insight into the operating system to do the job right. And don't you fucking lecture me on civility -- you're the one engaging in destruction of the encyclopedia and of the hard work of others; you should fully expect push-back on such unhelpful behaviour. Warren -talk- 22:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I try to discuss with you and you call my edits vandalism and then tell me to basically go screw myself? You should know very well that you don't own the encyclopedia and you don't randomly insult others because you disagree with their edits. It's immature at best. I'm honestly surprised you haven't been warned yet for this behavior, considering your past discussions. GraYoshi2x►^talk 23:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Boo-hoo-hoo! How about you stop trying to damage the encyclopedia; my attitude towards you will improve considerably and immediately. Warren -talk- 18:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take this to Wikiquette alerts if you don't stop acting this way. Immature behavior that you use on places like forums aren't allowed here. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Windows Vista. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That does not look even close to a 3RR violation. Chillum 22:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7

Would you care to explain how a Windows XP virtual machine can run under Win7 without a hypervisor? Or maybe why Microsoft Virtual PC, which is the core enabling technology, is not a Type-2 hypervisor? In any event, it would useful if you engaged in the discussion on the talk page, rather than trying to start an edit war over specific details that you have misunderstood and therefore got incorrect in your version of the article. Thank you Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitionally, a hypervisor can run multiple guest operating systems simultaneously. Windows XP Mode cannot do this. To this end, no Microsoft sources describe XPM as a hypervisor. Simple, really. Warren -talk- 18:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but hypervisor is defined as something that runs multiple operating systems simultaneously, not multiple guest OSs. Anyways, if you so insist on requiring a source before you understand this simple fact, read http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2621 --117.201.112.44 (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand the concepts just fine, thank you -- part of my professional life involves maintaining VMWare ESX servers. I still maintain that "Windows XP Mode", as a feature of Windows 7, is definitionally not a hypervisor as it is not capable of running multiple operating systems at the same time. It is virtual machine software that makes use of hypervisor-based virtualization, yes, but "Windows XP Mode" has one baked-in virtual machine -- it is not intended to do anything else. Your source actually backs up my point of contention here -- it doesn't describe Windows XP Mode as a hypervisor (because it isn't); it does however, describe Virtual PC as a hypervisor (because it is). Is the difference clear now? Warren -talk- 02:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but I don't think XP Mode is not a feature "of" Windows 7. It is just another application that runs on top it, but is not a part of Windows 7. Me thinks. --soum^talk 04:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

About it being Se7en - see Windows 7 talk page, Seven section. I want to discuss that because I think you are mistaken. Sincerely, Shadiac (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one that removed "Windows Se7en" from the article recently. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiselect (Ctrl+click)

I am referring to the case when taskbar buttons aren't combined, whereas you are referring to the case when taskbar buttons are combined. :-) Of course, then it can be said the feature has only changed, not removed. But then using the old way, the user could select which windows to group close or maximize; in the "Always combined" setting, the user can only group close all or none, he cannot select the windows to close. When I asked Steven Sinofsky, he replied as follows: "You're right. I tried this out with Excel (being an old office person) and of course that doesn't work because Excel isn't quite an MDI application. It is something we removed from Windows 7 deliberately when we introduced the new Taskbar, in particular jumplists, which would not apply to a selection." - xpclient ^Talk 05:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean now. Weird, I never knew about that particular capability. Warren -talk- 13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Venus revert

I do think that Venus sufficiently meets the requirement for being considered 'related' to the Windows line of operating systems. By the limited accounts I can find on the Internet, it actually appears as if it was supposed to be somewhat related to CE. One (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, http://news.cnet.com/Gates-pushes-TV-computers-in-China/2100-1040_3-222815.html mentions that Venus would've run on a special version of Windows CE. One (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That article says that it's a software & hardware solution built on top of Windows CE... in other words, it's not actually an operating system, any more than WebTV is. Windows CE is the operating system. You've disproven your own point. Warren -talk- 14:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Venus was intended to essentially be a set-top version of Windows CE (and from the sounds of another article I've read, it was supposed to be a specialized variant of CE; it's in the references of Venus's article) for low-end Chinese televisions. If that's not enough to be designated a related variant of Windows, then I suppose it's alright. One (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

On a somewhat-related note, could you think of a Microsoft-related template that Venus could possibly fit in? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to figure out what it could go well with. One (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... in the hardware section of Template:Microsoft, I guess? Warren -talk- 21:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've added it there. Thanks for the suggestion. One (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

UPnP

Hi, Warren. I see that you reverted my change of "corporations" to "small business" on the UPnP page. I should probably start by defending my qualifications. I'm not a vandal -- I'm vice president of UPnP Forum (and former chair of the UPnP Forum Steering Committee and Technical Committee), have been very actively involved in UPnP since 2001, and was the editor for the ISO/IEC version of the UPnP standards. I have a pretty good feel for how UPnP is actually being used. I made this change in response to one of the complaints posted on the discussion section of the UPnP page. The fact is that UPnP is very rarely used in managed enterprise environments. UPnP devices CAN be attached to corporate networks, but it often gives the network admins shivers (as would attachment of any unauthorized device). But UPnP devices are very useful in any self-managed network where "plug and play" capability is a plus. So, if you don't like this edit, how would you phrase it instead? Tobylnixon (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Uhhhh.... I can't quite believe I have to quote from The UPnP Forum's web site, to you of all people, but clearly it's necessary:

The Forum's goals are to allow devices to connect seamlessly and to simplify network implementation in the home and corporate environments. Toward this end, UPnP Forum members work together to define and publish UPnP device control protocols built upon open, Internet-based communication standards.

The UPnP Forum web site has said this since no later than December 2001. Somewhere in the history of the Wikipedia article, someone copied that paragraph from your web site, verbatim. Either you or the web site is wrong. Which one is it? Warren -talk- 23:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The web site contains some hopeful marketing fluff. Wikipedia pages aren't supposed to be marketing fluff -- I was trying to make the Wikipedia page reflect reality! :-) But since you've pointed this out, I'll see if we can get the Forum web page updated. Tobylnixon (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Windows Shell

It seems your original intention for Windows Shell was to describe explorer.exe, but that it's devolved into a description of any part of any version of Windows that be considered a shell. I've been trying for years to sort out the subject of this article, with no response. I only found one Microsoft reference using the title "Windows Shell" but it doesn't make it clear what its referring to. I propose the article be split to Windows Explorer, Program Manager, and MS-DOS Executive, perhaps a new article on Windows themes, and anything that isn't handled by a notable part of Windows be deleted or moved to Microsoft Windows or the appropriate version article. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Windows Shell is a composite of a number of different pieces of Windows that are used to provide services to applications. It's a core part of the operating system's architecture. Things like Explorer, Active Desktop, and practically every application that displays a file dialog window is built atop the shell. It has piles of other random functionality, too. That's why you'll see SHELL32 loaded into just a majority of processes on a running Windows system, even those that don't display a UI such as the kernel and various services processes. Not having an article on it, when we have articles on similar core components such as GDI, would be a mistake.

That said.... the Wikipedia article on the topic is definitely very poorly-written. A couple of years back I'd endeavoured to write a proper article on Windows Explorer, and there is some content in there that should actually belong in the Windows Shell article, like the bit on extensibility. Getting it right is a bit tricky because, as you've pointed out, it can be tricky to find the correct information... up until recently, the shell was sort of a dumping ground for every wacky feature Microsoft wanted have integrated with the operating system. It's a big part of the reason Microsoft's been embarking on the MinWin refactoring project for the last five years... it became quite a mess! Warren -talk- 18:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Top Gear Season 10 edits

Unless you can adequately prove that the gripe was in the episode itself (which it wasn't and I can prove), I have to refer the missive to Criticism of Top Gear, which is more appropriate for this sort of material. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you cannot provide a specific reference (even a general timeframe where the gripe was mentioned) in the article, then it doesn't belong in the episode list itself and belongs in the other article. This is why we don't include the Hilux Tree damage aftermath or any other silly little Ofcom complaints or whatever in the episode list themselves. They are called Episode Lists for a reason, and why we have a Criticism of Top Gear article to catch all of them. I strongly suggest you look at other episode lists of other TV shows and see how they format their lists. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're talking utter fucking bullshit. Calling an article an "episode list" doesn't excuse it from the responsibility of meeting ALL of Wikipedia's policies, including -- quite importantly -- WP:NPOV. Warren -talk- 00:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Mind your manners and present your side of the arguement here. Either we can talk it out and come to a compromise, or....y'know what, let's just talk it out.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I have posted an alert to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts to attempt to resolve the issue of your abusive language in an attempt to settle the content dispute. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Warren, please avoid making personal comments about other editors, their motivations, tactics, shortcomings etc etc. Comment on content, not the contributor. You are likely to be much more successful and productive if you do, particularly when involved in a content dispute. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I found something that you might wanna comment on. If you can bother to mind your tongue, your input would be appreciated. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)