User talk:Warren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warren's talk page.

Thanks for dropping by, please leave comments at the bottom. I'll reply on this page unless you ask me to reply on yours. :)

Archive

Archives
Archive 1 — January / February 2006

Archive 2 — March / April 2006
Archive 3 — May / June 2006
Archive 4 — July / Aug / Sep 2006
Archive 5 — Oct / Nov 2006
Archive 6 — Dec / Jan / Feb 2007
Archive 7 — Mar / Apr 2007
Archive 8 — May / Jun 2007
Archive 9 — Jul - Dec 2007
Archive 10 — Jan - Mar 2008

Contents

[edit] You specifically

Image:Antiflame-barnstar.png The Anti-Flame Barnstar
...deserve this for being the voice of reason in many discussions that went on to become flame wars. :-) soum talk 20:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I was wrong

Didnt see that one, thank you for reverting my unnecessary edit. Clearly, Vista is recent and the newer release of Windows. It should remain the same. // A Raider Like Indiana 22:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] barn

Thanks a lot for the star Warren, I really did not expect that! I merely aimed for level of quality and high standards among the MS articles that you have done so much, and for so long, to contribute to. Digita (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Windows Template

[edit] Windows template

Hey, let's have a conversation on Template talk:Microsoft Windows family and figure out what to do. It's a tricky because both you and Soum are right in what you're trying to do, but I think the real culprit here might actually be the articles themselves, which is making it harder to have a clear sense of what the template should contain. Going back and forth with duelling edits isn't going to solve it... I know we can work it out. :-) -/- Warren 19:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should figure something out. We could start a conversation in the talk page of the template // A Raider Like Indiana 21:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Development of Windows Vista edit, comment on User Talk: bradleyjx

Hey, I would like to apologize for the edit that I made that was incorrect on Development of Windows Vista in regards to one of the dates being switched form '05 to '03; my reasoning at the time was that in the scope of the page, I saw nothing but '03 datestamps in that area, checked the source, and I believed that there was an '03 datestamp on the source. (I have no idea why in retrospect, but still...)

The reason I'm posting this, though, is that I'd just ask that in the future, please don't expect the worst in people's actions. It really irks me when I feel threatened after trying to help... bradleyjx (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAR notification

Windows 2000 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Collectonian (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Vista Embedded

Hello Warren, Windows Vista Embedded article hasn't sources, so I please you about help with this article, because, it isn't believable article, if hasn't sources. Alden or talk with Alden 07:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] XP Editions

A solid start but still a long way to go. The first thing that strikes is the article barely has any context; it cannot stand on its own. A good WP:LEAD is needed. Next, like you already stated, Home needs more info about what it has :-_ As for the home and pro comparison, I think it better be reworded from the PoV of what Pro has rather than what Home doesn't. The points mentioned seem too convoluted at places: "A sophisticated access control scheme that allows specific permissions on files to be granted to specific users under normal circumstances. However, users can use tools other than Windows Explorer (like cacls or File Manager), or restart to Safe Mode to modify access control lists." - isn't it better to state it in simpler terms like "Modification of access control rights for files and folders from within Explorer itself. Home needs external tools like cacls (or use Explorer in safe mode) to do the same." Or "Support for two physical CPUs, no limit on number of cores per CPU." in place of "Support for two physical central processing units (CPU). (Because the number of CPU cores and Hyper-threading capabilities on modern CPUs are considered to be part of a single physical processor, multicore CPUs are supported using XP Home Edition.)" (though that will be technically incorrect, as the processor affinity mask is a 32 bit number in XP, so max. 32 processors but whatever!)

As an unfortunate remnant of their separate geneses, the merged article now contains a weird mixture of prose and summary style writing. Lot of cleanup needed in this department and to ensure a good flow between the sections. I will let you finish whatever you have in mind before I start poking my butt in. :-P --soum talk 08:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments :-) ... I figured I'd wait on writing a complete lead section until the rest of the article had come together. I ordered the sections according to what I think would be of most interest to readers based on how widespread each edition has been. Another approach might be to use alphabetical order. A table at the end of the article with a timeline of all the releases of Windows XP would make for a good reference, too...
A lot of the text you're quoting about the Pro section comes directly from the Windows XP article (and is part of the reason why that article lost its FA status recently)... I am of course very interested in getting this all refocused as prose where it's appropriate. -/- Warren 17:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windows XP editions article

Hello, the Windows XP editions are turning up to be nice. But some info seems to be dropped from the individual articles. I hope no info will be lost in the transition :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpclient (talk • contribs)

Hey, lets first finish the merge first. Copy-pasting into a monolithic article is just the first step. The tough part starts then after! Btw, it would be of great help if you point out whats lost in translation. --soum talk 08:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Xpclient, nice to hear from you -- yeah, I'm doing some copy editing to be a little more succinct with how some of the information is presented. Probably the single biggest piece of text that didn't make it to the combined article is the section from the MCE article on hacking it do be able to join a domain. It's still mentioned, but I moved the information into the "features" section, and retained the most important references. I also tried to get the 64-bit editions a little more focused; there was a fair bit of overlap and duplication, so I was able to cut that down and present the whole 64-bit thing together. It needs some more work, but I don't think it's too bad now. -/- Warren 17:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free Windows icon

Hi Warren. I'm letting you know that I've made a free graphic which could be used to represent the Windows logo in the WikiProject Microsoft Windows user box or where-ever. Image:Win-like-userbox.svg or Image:Win-like-userbox.png. Let me know what you think... Althepal (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Vista Embedded

Does Windows Vista Embedded even exist? All I can find info on is Windows Vista for Embedded Systems, which is the full Vista system licensed for embedded devices. Unlike the componentized XP Embedded (XPe), this thing is not componentized. According to this, Windows Vista Embedded (lets call it Vistae as a successor to XPe) will probably be skipped in favor of 7e (as opposed to the version that is already available). Anyways, a major reorg is probably needed as Windows Embedded Standard, Windows Embedded Compact, Windows Embedded Enterprise and Windows Embedded POSReady brands have been created to populate the Windows Embedded family. (According to the same document, an Windows XP for Embedded Devices edition exists separate from XPe; the former is now a part of Windows Embedded Enterprise while the latter of Windows Embedded Standard). Man, I am lost in this naming mess!!! --soum talk 17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So how do we proceed? Make Windows Embedded article, and make Windows Embedded Compact (renamed from Windows Embedded CE), Windows Embedded Standard (containing NT4e, XPe and info about Vistae/7e), Windows Embedded Enterprise (XP for Embedded, Vista for Embedded) and Windows Embedded PileOfShit (sorry POSReady :-P) sub articles of it? --soum talk 05:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I am in favor of the Windows Embedded article being a glorified disambiguation page, in line with the SharePoint page, that describes (as opposed to just listing) the Windows Embedded family. I am going with this press release on the family members. Also have moved Embedded Windows to Windows Embedded; am not touching other articles right now. --soum talk 07:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lou Dobbs

I am currently wondering why my edit to Lou Dobbs was reverted, shouldn't the 'lede' paragraph, include major controversies. In that case there are numerous sources and articles that call Lou Dobbs a populist, and a protectionist. I don't know why wikipedians like yourself protect people like him. Dwilso 07:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning to revoke privileges?

I have just supplied proof that my edit is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. So I don't believe that undoing the previous edit, puts me in any particular position to get revoked of anything. So please accept that I know what I'm talking about, provided a cite, and even included it into the talk page. This is a source everyone can edit, but not based on opinion. I realize this, but you need to understand the difference between AERO and VISTA. Because font and popup changes have been made to Windows since the day it was put on market. This has absolutely nothing to do with Aero, which is just a much newer, much more open expansion to the original theme system. And I will include this in the talk as well. Thanks, Brandon.

[edit] MAPI Clients

Why was Bynari Insight Connector removed from the Messaging Application Programming Interface (MAPI)? Insight Connector is a 100% MAPI complient client that allow Outlook to communicate to a different server. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walker45 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vista Embedded

I noticed that you removed my deletion nomination for Windows Vista Embedded and told me to google it. I've done that, and I don't see anything that shows that Windows Vista Embedded exists. I think the authoritative references are Microsoft's Windows Embedded Products page and this press release, Microsoft Charts Its Road Map for Windows Embedded Business. I think the confusion arose because there is both Windows XP Embedded (a componentized version of XP Professional) and Windows XP for Embedded Systems (essentially full XP). People assumed Microsoft would release a componentized version of Vista and call it Windows Vista Embedded, but so far they have not. Instead they only released Windows Vista for Embedded Systems (essentially full Vista). To make this discussion more confusing, Microsoft just renamed both Windows XP for Embedded Systems and Windows Vista for Embedded Systems to Windows Embedded Enterprise. I mentioned all this on talk:Windows Vista Embedded when I made the edit. Once you've reviewed the two links to Microsoft above, could you please revert your edit? PuerExMachina (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for working to straighten everything out! PuerExMachina (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windows XP

I was just thinking, "I don't want to get into an edit war. I'll let another editor weigh in for a third opinion. Where the heck is Warren? He'd probably delete it!" And there you were. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Taskbar

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --neonwhite user page talk 22:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh, a warning template from an editor that's been reverted by three different editors and told he's wrong. -/- Warren 23:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm appreciative of others who are more familiar with Wikipeida culture and process stepping in to help with the taskbar article. Charles Oppermann (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
If you continue to removed the neutrality dispute tag then you will be given a final warning, the same goes for edit warring and your uncivil behaviour. --neonwhite user page talk 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:PDC

I am sorry but I don't think it will be possible for me in October. I will try but no promises. :-) However, I will probably be moving in December for my M.S. So we can meet anytime after that. --soum talk 03:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linux Unified Kernel

Since the aim is to import certain key Windows OS features (eg the syscall entry point) into the Linux Kernel, the better to run windows-OS softeware, I think the wundows-stub is clearly relevant. Will reinstate unless you can better justify. Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

{{windows-stub}} is for articles about Microsoft Windows in and of itself, not for third-party programs. In other words -- if it didn't ship with Windows, on the disc, this stub isn't suitable. You should use {{software-stub}} instead. -/- Warren 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
But it isn't a third-party _program_ in that sense - everything from the kernel services up is standard windows or windows-compatible dlls. Linuxlad (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. It doesn't describe something that is part of Windows, in and of itself. It describes a project that seeks to emulate Windows, which is not at all the same thing as being Windows. -/- Warren 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DVD Player (software)

Hi. The article says “(formerly Apple DVD Player)”, and it is developed by Apple, so is it not correct as an article title only, or software title? --AVRS (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drive mappings

Windows has always allowed a network UNC to mapped without a local drive letter being assigned. At the console, this is "Net use \\server\share" while in Explorer, you chose "(none)" as the drive letter. The latter has been removed from Vista. Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page for discussions related to the article from next time on. --soum talk 14:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Bad

I do apologize sincerely. I am new at this. Once again, sorry. Zrs 12 (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent revert of IP edit

Thanks for helping on Bondwell but it looks like the person has reverted you again. They have been warned but they blanked their talk page.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Warren, I'm not comitting vandalism. Fnagaton's edit was wrong. He even claimed my edit was vandalism. Just check the edit history. DavidPaulHamilton has no reason to interfere. He's likely a sock anyway or at the very least a disruptive single-purpose account acting as enforcement of the few people who are strongly opposing IEC 60027-2. --217.87.83.146 (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This IP user has been range blocked for using multiple IPs to vandalise numerous pages. Fnagaton 16:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Windows XP Editions removal.

I feel that specialized editions of windows xp should have their own articles instead of clumping them together into a redicously long article. I however cannot justify this action. Please talk about this in the Windows XP talk page before father action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illegal Operation (talk • contribs)

I've undone all your reversions. A lot of thought and work went into this merge effort, and if you can't even be bothered to provide so much as an edit summary as an explanation for your reversions, much less a proper rationale, here or at Talk:Windows XP, then I see no reason to treat your edits as anything other than disruptive. Windows XP editions exists because these operating systems are 99.9% the same, and only vary slightly by hardware support and a couple of bundled applications. The same rationale applies to Windows Vista editions, and at some point we might have a Windows 2000 editions article, too. -/- Warren 05:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OOXML standardization section

Hello, I think you may have been mistaken by User:hAl about my edits on the OOXML articles, he mention what he claims to be one of my edits: The fact remains that Office 2007 is not still conformant to the standard, but as I checked my previous edits for the text "The fact remains" on the Standardization section here, here, here, as far as of beginning of April, I could not find this text. So either he invented it, or this sentence must have been somebody else add. And as for User:hAl, I still think that he looks biased to me, look Talk here. Also I find him writing about me as trolling is offending. And I'm sorry, but I don't find that the edit about Delegate (.NET) you pointed was POV. I founded this unsourced claim in the previous version of the article: Delegates are more efficient than interfaces as the method pointer is calculated (if virtual) when the delegate is first assigned, rather than each time it is invoked. and I searched for sources for or against it. I found an article from Microsoft's MSDN (the most recent benchmarks I could find about delegates at the time), and I don't think the tone was aggressive or NPOV. The performance information was later updated to the current text (and I participated to the update) after new benchmarks (which are few in the .NET world) were found. One last thing: One of my edits (later deleted because one user still thought there was too much sensationalism in it) was: However, Office conforms to the ECMA version of the standard, and it could be hinted that these differences are normal at this point in the history of the standard, because Microsoft could not have fixed them so early. Still think I'm biased ? (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, as for the fact remains... stuff, I found it in the talk page. I looked for it in the article body. It strikes me that User:hAl choose to pick just this one sentence (I admit that the expression was flawed, but I have an excuse, I'm not a native English speaker) in this thread. I was merely explaining the reason why I undeleted his previous deletion under the The fact that an implementation does not conform to a new not yet published format specification has no encyclopedic value claim. Hervegirod (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Microsoft WSUS Admin.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Microsoft WSUS Admin.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I've replied to your comments over at WP:LEAD. Look forward to your thoughts. Unschool (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ani Difranco Reprieve.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ani Difranco Reprieve.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replied

I've replied on my talk page :-) - xpclient Talk 19:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] In re Keith Olbermann: Claims of ideological bias

The Criticism of the Hillary Clinton campaign section of the article illustrates the leftward direction of Olbermann's complaint about it. Otherwise, the statement that his "chastisement (of Clinton) seems to have been occasioned by a rightward turn in her campaign" is unsupported. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 7 & Minwin

You are absolutely incorrect, and refuse to admit when you are wrong, and if you ever actually watched the original showing of MinWin you would realize that I am correct, and that MinWin is just an arbitrary name assigned to the standalone striped down version of the kernel that is just a proof of concept and WILL NEVER be a product or part of one, the actual kernel that will be in Windows 7 will be something that mirrors the efforts of "MinWin" on a much more realistic and practical scale. I will not continue this discussion with you as there is a repeated pattern of you refusing to admit when you are wrong, which you most certainly are. Especially refusing to acknowledge a reasonable request to both work on the section of the article that is being disputed until both parties agree as per Wikipedia guidelines. A. S. Castanza 04:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though what I said about MinWin above is in line with all the official evidence, in a good faith attempt to return this to reasonable discussion before it leads to a flame war, I added a disputed section tag to the Kernel section so people realize that there is an ongoing (hopefully reasonable) discussion about what MinWin actually is and its role in Windows 7. A. S. Castanza 05:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. S. Castanza (talk • contribs)
You'd be better off if you just admit that you don't know what you're talking about, leave it alone. Sorry, buddy, but when Windows kernel developers, and one of the Internet's most well-known reporters on all things Windows, and one of Wikipeida's most experienced editors on Windows subjects all align against what you believe to be true, you should just stop for a minute and ask yourself if you actually understand the topic. There's no discussion to have -- you simply need to educate yourself. -/- Warren 05:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You are the one relying on unsupported "journalism" and misinterpreting statements from Windows developers, and it does not make you opinion any more correct than mine. This section is IN FACT disputed, leave the tag the way it is, or, the entire section could always be edited down to the only completely provable statement "A more refined, streamlined kernel based off of Server 2008, is currently in development for Windows 7" A. S. Castanza 05:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. S. Castanza (talk • contribs)
Unsupported journalism? What the fuck is your cognitive problem with this? Why is your brain letting you down at a time when you need it to be functioning properly? Why are you blithely arguing something that I provided you plenty of evidence to prove you wrong? You deleted my lengthy comment on your talk page that provided you with multiple reliable sources, and you did not respond to any of it, but instead you choose to carry on with some stupid bullshit about "unsupported journalism". You're saying that Mark Russinovich, Eric Traut and Paul Thurrott don't know what they're talking about, but when Ina Fried asks Steve Sinofsky a question that he very explicitly refuses to answer, that is somehow acceptable? Nothing that's been said in the last couple of days by Microsoft has refuted anything about Minwin's use in Windows 7. You're going to have a miserable time editing Wikipedia if you can't see what's right in front of you. -/- Warren 06:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked at your sources and guess what, What Eric said is that "[MinWin] is a set of components that they had taken out of Windows 7". All this is, the incorrect assumption of a few journalists that they were building Windows 7 off of this, in reality its the other way around, they took early work on Windows 7, pulled these components out of it and isolated it. Thats all it is. A. S. Castanza 12:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
And again a quote: "... Making sure we had a clear architectural layer there" read it again for emphasis, thats all they are doing with MinWin "And created what we call MinWin. This is internal only, we WONT be productizing this" Therefore it WILL NOT be productized as Windows 7. Quote from the very end "Thats kinda proof that there is a pretty nice little core inside Windows" ie: its a proof of concept. Also he said at the very end again "we don't have any productization plans for this, but we will be using this internally to build the other products biased off of windows... We build a lot of products biased off this kernel" So as you can clearly see, Windows 7 is not biased of of MinWin, it is in fact the other way around. Hows that for proof. A. S. Castanza 13:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"Therefore it WILL NOT be productized as Windows 7" - thats totally your interpretation. It could very well mean "Therefore it WILL NOT be productized as a separate stand alone offering". "...,ie: its a proof of concept" - no they were not proving any concept. They were debunking the myth that Windows is bloated. Don't take quotes out of context to prove a point. --soum talk 16:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
All "MinWin" was, was the name for their standalone kernel made solely to prove that point, i'm glad you agree with me. MinWin is the name of the standalone windows kernel only, nothing else, and Eric trout clearly states that it was pulled FROM the Windows 7 code base. A. S. Castanza 16:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. S. Castanza (talk • contribs)

This does not need to be discussed on my talk page any further. Use Talk:Windows 7. -/- Warren 16:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft Windows#Names of article about Windows

Hello Warren, I know that you're member of Wikiproject Microsoft Windows, so can you see on it section: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft Windows#Names of article about Windows? Alden or talk with Alden 13:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOSNUM requires unambiguous units

Who is edit-warring here? MOSNUM makes it very clear that unambiguous units are preferred, and that if you introduce ambiguous ones, as you have done here [1] [2]and here [3] [4], you must find a way to disambiguate them. I reverted your changes, and added a note to the talk pages, because you did not seem to realise the need for this. I understand that disambiguation without the help of IEC prefixes is not easy, and if you need some help with this please let me know. But please try to keep your edit summaries civil - other editors will respect you more if you do that. Regards, Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


No, TB2 from the guideline text "Consensus was reached that the spirit of the MoS was better reflected by having familiar but ambiguous units". The guideline says "Editors should use the conventional prefixes, such as kilobyte (KB) and megabyte (MB), and disambiguate where necessary." (i.e. it is not mandatory to disambiguate) and "IEC prefixes are not to be used on Wikipedia except under the following circumstances". Looking at Warren's changes, where you say he has done nothing wrong (on MOSNUM), he has correctly removed the IEC prefixes, within the scope of the guideline. He obviously doesn't think disambiguation is necessary which is also within the scope of the guideline and you did say he has done nothing wrong. Obviously from your comments you do think disambiguation is necessary, so within the scope of the guideline you should be adding acceptable disambiguation, not adding IEC prefixes back again. Fnagaton 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
As Fngaton has pointed out, disambiguation isn't required. You aren't stupid(, right?) so you should know this. If you want to provide more explicit disambiguation, go right ahead... but you know from your extensive participation on WP:MOSNUM debates that the IEC prefixes are generally not welcome in computing articles, and that they should carry the ambiguous binary prefixes unless there is a very specific reason to do otherwise. Do not revert such changes. It -only- leads to needless grief, and to edit summaries directed at you that you won't like. Thanks. -/- Warren 18:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • From Greg L: Warren. Please see the references section of Mac Pro for how I disambiguated binary prefixes without using the IEC prefixes. In an apparent effort to “prove” how impossible the task of disambiguating without the IEC prefixes, Thunderbird a month or so ago, went to the “Mac Pro” article to disambiguate it and dicked it all up. It’s possible he just didn’t have his heart in the effort; I don’t necessarily think he purposely did an extraordinarily poor job at disambiguating it without using the IEC prefixes. But he did write on Talk:MOSNUM that “Something isn't working. I have attempted to apply Greg's new guideline on a number of different articles, but the success rate is patchy.” It took me only a half hour to disambiguate the article without using unfamiliar terminology and I did so using common techniques and terminology that were in conformance with common practices seen in current literature on the topic. Thunderbird2 seemed to have been pleased with the results (perhaps, begrudgingly so), because he wrote to me on his talk page as follows: “You did a good job at Mac Pro, and I admire the effort and energy you put into your writing.” So Warren, I submit that if you use techniques similar to those use on “Mac Pro”, you shouldn’t encounter any more revertings from him. If you do, let me know. Greg L (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • To Greg: I take it that you agree with me that disambiguation is required, though I do wish you would refrain from repeatedly questioning my motives. (And yes, footnotes will do nicely.) It is clear from the above exchange, however, that both Warren and Fnagaton see no such requirement in exactly the same guideline. Thunderbird2 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] High five

We get a break until he gets to OS X :D BJTalk 17:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ATT

Warren, I don't specifically object to nor do I support ATT. I object to labeling something as being in a category which does not exist. Essays are specifically described as the opinions of the writers, without alluding to the existence of a consensus. I see this summary category as being a dangerous precedent, where without gaining a meaningful consensus, writers can subjectively condense a policy page or pages; then it becomes treated like gospel. Condensing is editing and by definition something is lost. If what is lost is not relevant to the consensus at the policy page, then it should not have been included there in the first place. If our policies need to be summarized for them to be useful, then they are too complicated. I'm involved at ATT today because I saw this being used as a precedent for using a similar template elsewhere. With the best of intentions toward solving the exigencies at ATT, poor policy is being created. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The first obvious problem is that ATT was written in collbaration by hundreds of editors, therefore it is empirically not an essay. Wrap your head around this basic truth, please.
Please see my earlier comments on the talk page where I describe the ATT page as being similar to other pages we have in the Wikipedia namespace that describe policy without being policy. I liken it to those booklets that governments hand out that teach you the rules of the road. They don't give you a copy of the canonical traffic act; they give you a summation with pretty pictures and a less dense approach to the subject. That's basically what the ATT page does -- it reformulates the official policy into something simpler, making it a useful learning reference, especially for newcomers. -/- Warren 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
ATT "developed" with more opposition than support, thus it has never represented consensus. The entities which summarize traffic rules represent an authority, ATT does not have the authority of consensus. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You should have looked at the results at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll before suggesting that there was "more opposition than support", because it amply demonstrates that the opposite was true. Of course, you didn't participate in the discussion or the poll, whereas I did both, so perhaps you should back off a bit from believing you're in a position to tell me what was going on at the time. The reality is that Jimmy Wales did step in and demand that the policies remain separate, which pretty much doomed ATT to its current status as a page which describes policies without actually being the policy.
You're also not really wrapping your head around what I meant by traffic booklets. Consider a practical example: if you were dragged into court for a traffic violation, they aren't going to say, "you broke the rule on page 62 of the booklet"... they're going to tell you what section of the official, relevant traffic act you broke, and you will be prosecuted on that basis. In Ontario, for example, that's the Highway Traffic Act. In the same vein, ATT is something you can read to learn about policies, and it is actually quite an accurate and reasonable way to look at the whole issue of information sourcing on Wikipedia. But, you can't be blocked for "ATT violations", any more than can you be blocked for "five pillars violations", or "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia violations". Those pages are not policies, guidelines, or essays, but I don't see people arguing that they should be considered "historical" or "obsolete" or should be tagged as "essays". -/- Warren 23:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Warren, I do see your point, but I would rather see our policy and guideline pages simplified than develop more layers of guidance. It's a matter of clarity and practicality. I have observed that the free-form nature of a wiki allows constant manipulation of the rule-sets with people changing one area without follow-through to all of the related pages and permutations. Thus we end up with inconsistencies and the best of intentions backfire. My main area of emphasis within the process pages has been at WP:N and the various subpages -- a horrific mess, which has improved in the last year, but is always in danger of exploding into hundreds of conflicting permutations. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Warren, thanks for the pointer to the ATT poll. My impression had been that ATT had failed. I was involved early on in support of the merger, but it seemed to go nowhere. The question stated in the poll was: "Wikipedia:Attribution is a merger of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research into a single policy page." and the result seemed to be affirmative. Why was it never made policy and why did it not replace the other two pages? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Vista 64

I have reverted your redirect of Windows Vista 64. Windows Vista editions hardly mentions the 64-bit version and it has enough of it's own issues to warrant it's own article, or at least these issues should be merged first before redirect, and there are set procedures to discuss this. --Triwbe (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at Windows XP editions and see how things are done there. Information about 64-bit editions of Windows Vista belongs in Windows Vista editions, not a separate article; there is very little information about 64-bit Vista that is sufficiently distinct from a general description of the editions that it requires its own article. -/- Warren 19:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Windows Vista editions. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not call other editors ideas stupid this is not acceptable wikpedia policy. Triwbe (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA; I said the idea of having two articles on Windows Vista editions is stupid... because it is... and according to policy, this is not a personal attack. If you're offended, well, boo-hoo to you, but instead of taking the cheap way out and substing in a warning template onto my talk page, how about providing an explanation as to why Wikipedia requires two short articles on editions, rather than one longer one. Thanks. -/- Warren 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for communicating. "stupidity" is a very POV term, one mans stupidity is another mans operating system :-) I have explained my reasons on the article talk page, as one should. But until now, you had not responded. --Triwbe (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vista x64 list.

Its indded ambitious and a commendable effort. But the gain isn't probably worth the pain. :-P Btw, whats your email/IM id? --soum talk 05:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)