User talk:Paul Cyr
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Paul Cyr is currently busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
STOP: If you post on my talk page I will reply on my talk page. If I post on your talk page, please reply on your talk page. It will help keep things organized.
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Please explain in a non-rude way
That is a big overstatement. Overall, I do not edit Wikipedia in a "nonsence" way. If it occured with the Windows Vista article, please explain to me how and where I went wrong. This may be considered vandalism, but it is also something that I am offended with what you said, and this to me is abuse, "O guardian of the Vista article". I thought it was documenting a current event, but to you it isn't. My appologies, but please don't be so fret about it. Hucz 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well for one, how is it a current event? It's not even an event, it's a piece of software. You'll notice the current event links to Portal:Current events which are all news stories. The comment was a generic template for edits that appear as vandalism. You were previously warned for blanking a page diff so I left the next warning up from that. If you're edit was honest then I will definitely assume good faith and remove the warning. But could you explain your blanking of the other page and why you felt the current tag belonged on the Windows Vista page? Paul Cyr 05:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
OKay, fair enough, you were right. But that other blank vandalism was a mistake. I tried to move the page to a page that was redirecting to itself, so it wouldn't let me move it. So I tried to cut the text out and delete the article then edit the other one and re-add the info. It didn't work like I wanted it to, so I did it the long way. But that was settled between a mod and I, so I'm assuming it's no biggie.
[edit] User:24.218.124.62 and User:148.87.1.171
That user is indeed User:148.87.1.171, etc.; just check out his User:24.218.124.62's edit history. He signs most of his comments on Talk:Best Buy under one of those Oracle ip addresses. My report for WP:AN/3RR is already filled out, but I'll wait until the next revert before I submit it. Regards, Tuxide 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vista
Once every two hours is a reasonable amount of vandalism from my point of view. You should request unprotected at RFPP if you want a second opinion. Savidan 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Driver crash" image
As stated in Peter Gutmann's article, Vista is constantly checking to see if the display driver is valid. If it decides for some reason that said driver is bogus, it kicks out the driver and restarts the rendering engine. The error message is correct in saying that the driver crashed, but leaves out that it was Windows that intentionally crashed it. The message has only ever appeared while viewing protected DVD content in VLC (protected commercial DVDs viewed in a commercial player work fine, as do unprotected backed up DVDs in VideoLan), which leads me to believe that the driver crash is induced by the very same "display driver kill bit" Steve Gibson talked about on his podcast. Noclip 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've had that message appear when I wasn't viewing any protected content. The additional (and more important) fact that Windows killing the display driver because of a program showing protected content is not attributable to Peter Gutmann's article makes it inadmissible. Speculation isn't fact. Paul Cyr
