![]() | 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. |
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)
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)
Hey, I'm in the Win7 beta. :-) Happy New Year! — Alex Khristov 21:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Would love your input on this article, Proprietary software. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 12:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I've initiated an RFC here. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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
Why do you keep adding an "Upgrades" section to the article (especially [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You're right, the first Microsoft page looks wrong when you look at the others. Steve
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)
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)
It sure was nice talkin' with you, Warren. :p ¦ Reisio ( talk) 06:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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. |
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)
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)
Hey, I'm in the Win7 beta. :-) Happy New Year! — Alex Khristov 21:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Would love your input on this article, Proprietary software. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 12:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I've initiated an RFC here. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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
Why do you keep adding an "Upgrades" section to the article (especially [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You're right, the first Microsoft page looks wrong when you look at the others. Steve
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)
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)
It sure was nice talkin' with you, Warren. :p ¦ Reisio ( talk) 06:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)