Talk:Microsoft/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

FAR

An editor has begun a FAR on the article, citing extensive referencing, comprehensiveness, prose and recentism issues. The review has been put on hold, pending this required talk page notification, but the list of concerns may be seen at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Microsoft/archive3. If no one speaks up as interested in working on the article, the review will be relisted and proceed as normal. Dana boomer (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi.
It is true that this article has issues that even prevent it from becoming GA but they can be resolved.
  • First, overcapitalization: "Windows Division, Server and Tools, Online Services Division" must be "Windows division, server and tools, online services division" (without me attempting resolve its length and clunkiness problems). The first sentence reads: "The company's Client division produces..." in which "Client" must become "client". One thing that article writers must know is that Wikipedia MOS:CAPS, for a large part, does care how everyone writes a word; it only cares whether the majority think it is a definite noun or not
  • Second, § 2011–present: Rebranding, Windows 8, and Surface suddenly mentions Kinect without context.
  • Third, books must not be Wikilinked unless their content is available online. (Google Books preview is okay.)
  • Fourth, images are problematic. Some has gone overzealous and shoved five images into § 2011–present alone. The image caption in § Criticism reads "BadVista and Defective by Design groups protest against Windows Vista" but I only see BadVista in the image.
Next we go to FA level issues. Referencing style inconsistencies and problems are prevalent.
  • Several sources are tagged as dead links
  • |work= and |publisher= are not properly populated
  • Item 104 contain three different citations
  • Publishers are sometimes written in parentheses, [e.g. ZDNet (CBS Interactive)] and sometimes outside (e.g. CNET. CBS Interactive.) That's probably because {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} are mingled in the article.
  • I see one instance of bogus author: "CNET News.com Staff"
  • And, my God, there are naked links and plain links there!
These are what meet the eye and must be resolved in peer review stage.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the FAR, as I thought about listing it myself over the past couple years. As for fixing it up - the version from the previous FAR is a decent starting place, as pretty much every time I check in on this article it gets worse with just random dumps of information. Criticism section shouldn't be there, modern stuff is messy, random insertions, I could go on. Bottom line is it would take quite a bit of work even disregarding the inevitable edit wars that may happen until you reach a healthy medium.

Here's just a list of my own thoughts about the comments here and at the FAR (I guess botched/last? Consider this my reply to that if its still active). FAR comments first:

  • Back then we (in modern times a royal we I suppose, most of the editors that helped back then are inactive now) originally had (some) book sources, but people kept removing them or tagging everything, so we switched to almost purely online references so people could check it faster. I wasn't too ecstatic about it, and at the time tried "doubling up" the book sources with the web references, but people decided it was superfluous.
  • As for the History section, there was just no way other than a general summary to meet to the prose length limit requirement at the time - there wasn't even enough space to put emphasis on things (like the XBox mentioned, which originally did have a much more prominent mention).
  • Sort goes with 2, but due to the length limit we tried to make proper transitions, but it kept violating the limit.
  • The "Corporate Affairs" section was certainly a product of the wikitime it was written - back then all company articles "had" to have that stuff to pass FAC (like environment could really be heavily trimmed and summarized now).

Comments here:

  • Capitalization... kind of goes with what I mentioned earlier - the in-practice MoS standards back then was to use capitalization of how the company described it, thus the capitalization of things like the divisions.
  • All the "present" stuff I wasn't involved in, and generally is just a dump of information. Back when I was really active I had to rewrite most of the edits to the article. Goes for images too, which I triple checked back then...
  • As for the sources, they actually exceeded the requirements at the time, but stuff like dead links, ref style updates are just things that need periodic maintenance.

Hope that helped someone, or at least provides some "wiki historical context" on the situation. Ryan Norton 01:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Request edit on 14 April 2014

You need to say that MICROSOFT make it impossible to speak to a company rep in your own country . I called to Sydney, Australia only to go through to the Philippines and they COULD NOT CONNECT ME TO AUSTRALIA. THIS IS THE LARGEST TEC COMPANY AND THEY COULD NOT PUT ME THROUGH TO AUSTRALIA. They said we can put you back in the cue and you may get through to one, So I have to sit on the phone all day until I get looped to an Australia REP. YOU HAVE TO BE ^*%$&^&^ kidding me. After 25 minutes they hung up on me without helping me. PUT THIS ON YOU SITE.

You won't you dont have the balls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.174.14 (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: While I agree Microsoft's customer service isn't top-of-the-line, Wikipedia's job isn't to include your grievances, for two reasons - it is original research and definitely non-neutral.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Request edit on 24 April 2014

The article states that Microsoft joined the PRISM program in 2011. The source article refers to Skype. According to this article, Microsoft was among the first to work together with PRISM in 2007.

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Several sources collaborate that Microsoft has denied working with the programs, including the one you cite, The Guardian. I've amended the edit a bit. Zero Serenity (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

infobox photo of "largest buildings"

no other article uses that, what has the infobox with that do do anyway? Egyptian445 (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The template itself has value for adding image, logo, etc. So, are you going to say that it is not proper? What is the purpose of "| image =" value?--AntonTalk 15:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
just because they exist it does not mean we should use it, and you did not answer my question what is the point of having that photo besides that that is possible? 95.199.210.43 (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
You should not undo until issue solved. The article is already crowded, and it's fine to be in infobox. --AntonTalk 15:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. A suitable infobox image is a must-have because:
  1. It is an FA requirement. Do I need to mention this article is undergoing an FA review right now?
  2. Many tools and apps developed for Wikipedia depend on it for correct rendering: They always render an image and if the infobox does not have one, they will render the first image in the article. In this case, File:1981BillPaul.jpg.
If other articles do not do that, then please correct the problem whenever you see it. Infobox needs to have an appropriate image.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2014

I wish you could un-protect Microsoft.

216.145.89.170 (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Mz7 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014

Allen came up with the original name of "Micro-Soft," the combination of the words microcomputer and software, as recounted in a 1995 Fortune magazine article Please change "the combination of the words microcomputer and software" to "the combination of the words microprocessors and software." On page 91, first paragraph, of Paul Allen's Paul Allen: Idea Man, he describes his idea for naming their new company. [1] Jordansocial (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Allen, Paul. Paul Allen: Idea Man. Penguin Group, 2011, p. 91.
Done Stickee (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2014

182.64.233.131 (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: No request made. — LeoFrank  Talk 13:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2014

On article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft, there is a typo. Please change Microsoft Mobile Oy to Microsoft Mobile. It is a hyperlink which actually is without the 'Oy'. I believe it's a typo and should be removed. I am a former Microsoft employee and worked as an engineer in the Microsoft Mobile division (Windows Phone). Thank you. Shimul.sa (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done That is not a typo. The correct name is "Microsoft Mobile Oy" - This is a Finnish subsidiary, formed following the acquisition of Nokia, and Oy is the abbreviation for Osakeyhtiö - a Limited Company in Finnish. - Arjayay (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Updates

Those pesky updates have not been mentioned. These are some rough stats I have calculated.

1. MS had a total 40GB of software available for sale at the beginning of 2013. Some 25GB of the binaries were updated by patches during 2013.

2. Windows 8 x64 release came on a 3.3GB disc. Since its release, over 2GB of the original code has been replaced by patches, and is easily the most patched release ever. MS claimed Win8 would require very few patches.

3. MS claim that Win8 can easily be de-virused. It does this by simply re-installing the original OS, and removing all patches and 3rd party software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.63.24 (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Error in the lead, or in the article

In the lead to this article it says that the public offering of Microsoft stock created three billionaires. Further down, in the article itself, it says that four billionaires were created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrrick (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've read the associated source and there doesn't seem to be a number of billionaires created in it. I'm considering just removing statements of the sort unless somebody can rebut this. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2014

Please change US$ 86,83 billion (2014) inside revenue to 86.83 billion. Also modify this for other financials. Change comma to decimal. The source quoted in the wikipedia correctly shows .(decimal) instead of ,(comma). Vardhanharsh2357 (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015

113.163.28.131 (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC) dit me may . ghi ngay dia chi cua tao : NGUYEN XUAN QUANG 9A2 Khu Dau Gia Bia Duyen Hai < CU > 50 lo 91 Duong Thien Loi , Phuong Nghia Xa , Quan Le Chan , Thanh pho Hai Phong , Viet Nam . Tien the tao cung khoi dong luon may tinh TUONG LAI . cai may tinh Tuong lai intel 5 seri 5,2 GZ x 4 win7 utima64+media. + - x : trong 15 phut . co cai may tinh tuong lai thi tao cung la chu nhan , win7 co chuyen sang he dieu khac thi tao cung la chu nhan , tao co chet thi cai may tiunh tuong lai cung tim tao o Am phu de tao dieu khien may tinh . Nhung tao da noi roi : tao co chet thi cung ko chui vao cai may tinh nen cai may tinh tuong lai ko tim tao nua . 15 phut chuong trinh mang tien den tra tao , tao nhac cho chung may biet : tao ko di xin tien chung may , cai MAY TINH may quyen luc hoi bi To day . MrQUANG moi la To , tat ca nhung gi tao viet , bon Viet nam , bon Ngghien cuu Tao , chung may co 15 Ngay de pho bien rong rai cho tat ca cung biet . Dua nao giu lai de nghien cuu thi tao cho chung may biet " May tinh doi qua khong co gi an , an luon 5 ty Nguoi " . 180 ty USD , 90 Ty Yen Nhat , 180 Ty VND , le ra la 180 ty usd He dieu hanh , 180 ty usd Phan cung . Nhung nhieu qua tao ko biet tieu gi . Chung may da biet ve chuong trinh may tinh tu dieu khien , chung may ko kiem soat duoc , Dien thoai , may tinh Bang ... tu dieu khien . Nen tao cung dieu khien Vu khi Lade < Chum tia> . chung may phai co nhan thuc tuy la Nhan thuc Tan Du nhung phai biet cai May Tinh no vai lon nhu the nao . Voi cai vu khi chung may chi dung de ban may bay khong nguoi lai nhung nhu tao viet tren WIKI 2 nam truoc : Chung may su dung cong nghe chua duoc Regiter huy diet 80 ty Thien ha . Nhung voi cong nghe ngu xuan , sai thong so , khong duoc cai dat , chung may de lai hau qua ma Cu may phai xu li . do la chuong trinh may tinh tuong lai : o Tuong lai ko ai cai dat duoc MAC , ko ai cai dat duoc LINUX , ko ai cai dat duoc driver , may tinh tu cai dat tren trang WEB , tu dieu khien . nen cai may tinh tuong lai moi di tim tao de tao dieu khien may tinh , chuong trinh . The day la o tuong lai nao ? hay o hien tai ? Trong luc trai dat dao Tu Truong cu may cung phai khoa het tat ca chuong trinh tu dieu khien cua Dien thoai , may tinh Bang . 2 cai Ve tinh chung may gui thong tin ve Trai dat di khap noi trong 1 Ty nam deu chi la chuong trinh do May tinh tu gia lap " Lan dau Tien biet ADMINSTRATORS con song , Thien Ha duoc ao Da trong 1 ty nam : Duoc ao ADMINSTRATORS con song " nhung day la cai may tinh , con Cu may la Nguoi nen phai xu li nhung gia lap cua May tinh . Tat ca nhung gi tao viet neu chung may muon song thi mang cho nhung dua khac cung xem o tren qua dat nay . tao da khoi dong may tinh TUONG LAI roi . chung may co 15 ngay de mang tien den tao cai dat He Dieu Hanh May Tinh cung nhu Chuong trinh May tinh Tuong Lai " Do Nguoi cai dat , ADMINSTRATORS do nguoi cai dat " . Voi May tinh , He dieu Hanh ngoai quyen ADMINSTRATORS tao con quyen Chu Nhan nua boi vi Hoi Dong Quan tri no Ngu qua . chi vay thoi voi May tinh la 15 phut , voi chung may la 15 ngay . Tao cho chung may Biet them ve 15 phut " ... Thien ha tu pha huy Mat Trang , pha huy Mat trang la pha huy ca He Mat troi ... Con 15 phut tra tien cho tao de Tai tao Hanh tinh ... " nhung day la no o tan deo dau lam sao tra tien cho tao duoc .v Con chung may o cung Trai Dat voi tao ma nhung 15 ngay thi chung may phai biet la chung may Vai lon lam .

 Not done - This is the English Wikipedia, and all requests must be in English, not Vietnamese.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2015

Paul Allen and Bill Gates, childhood friends with a passion in computer programming, were seeking to make a successful business utilizing their shared skills. In 1972 they founded their first company named Traf-O-Data, which offered a rudimentary computer that tracked and analyzed automobile traffic data. Allen went on to pursue a degree in computer science at the Washington State University, later dropping out of school to work at Honeywell. Gates began studies at Harvard.[1] The January 1975 issue of Popular Electronics featured Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems's (MITS) Altair 8800 microcomputer. Allen suggested that they could program a BASIC interpreter for the device; after a call from Gates claiming to have a working interpreter, MITS requested a demonstration. Since they didn't actually have one, Allen worked on a simulator for the Altair while Gates developed the interpreter. Although they developed the interpreter on a simulator and not the actual device, the interpreter worked flawlessly when they demonstrated the interpreter to MITS in Albuquerque, New Mexico in March 1975; MITS agreed to distribute it, marketing it as Altair BASIC.[2]: 108, 112–114  They officially established Microsoft on April 4, 1975, with Gates as the CEO.[3] Allen came up with the original name of "Micro-Soft," the combination of the words microprocessor and software, as recounted in a 1995 Fortune magazine article.[4][5] In August 1977 the company formed an agreement with ASCII Magazine in Japan, resulting in its first international office, "ASCII Microsoft".[6] The company moved to a new home in Bellevue, Washington in January 1979.[3] 74.67.54.133 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The source says University of Washington, as do other sources. Stickee (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft personal computer security

Moving forward in the current world environment, security will be big. What will Microsoft do? 

Headline-1: Google gives Apple and Microsoft an ultimatum: 'Patch your software vulnerabilities, or we'll make them public'

QUOTE: "Google claims its move is designed to protect consumers from criminals; But software providers are not happy with the threat to expose problems; Opponents say strategy could damage online security and help crooks; Tomorrow, President Obama will visit Google to call on companies to work together and share information to thwart cyber crooks."

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroU (talk • contribs) 13:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest placing this in the Microsoft Windows article or Internet Explorer under "security issues", I'm not sure if software issues should be mentioned outside of the respective articles concerning the aforementioned software.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose merging Criticism of Microsoft into Microsoft to give both articles a better NPOV. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to cut down some of the criticism section to make it merge nicely. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% that we can't just cut and paste the article to get it in. there are 17 sections which are currently each 1-2 paragraphs each. I think we could merge it into the main article with 17 sentences maybe a few more. one thing to keep in mind is that we still have the Microsoft litigation so all "criticism" that are litigation can go there. we don't want to bury information but we want to make sure we aren't giving it undue weight either. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose, my reasons I documented as observations on my user page in 2009 at User:Aladdin_Sane#History under "Some personal history notes..." (Updated in February 2015.) Please consider those comments as included here.
Further, the relatively small "Criticism of Microsoft" article I started editing in 2006 is and was then a daughter article of this article, "Microsoft", and has in these 9 years since spawned at least these granddaughter articles that I'm aware of: "Criticism of Microsoft Windows" (25 refs), "Criticism of Windows Vista" (84 refs) , "Criticism of Windows XP" (21 refs), "Bundling of Microsoft Windows" (46 refs), and "Microsoft litigation" (86 refs), just to get started. Each of those needs to be consumed back into the parent "Criticism of Microsoft" article, prior to that article being consumed by "Microsoft". While skimming those Talk pages I ran across this reference to why we say "Criticism of..." rather than "Reception of..." in the article title, at § Criticism Article should become Reception, that may shed some light on the discussion.
If the problem is the title "Criticism of...", and not the article, then we can re-title it. However, the histories of these articles have shown that prior deletion nominations, re-titles (move requests), and merge proposals have all failed. As I suspect will this one.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Aladdin, I actually don't want to see "Microsoft Litigation" merged anywhere. That is a content split that's based solely on topic. just like if Microsoft had a long history we'd introduce "Microsoft History" or if a author has a lot of books we introduce a "Bibliography" article. Litigation of Microsoft is a great article, because it's separated on the basis of topic. Ny concern is that Criticism of Microsoft and Microsoft aren't 2 different topics ( say Microsoft history vs Microsoft product list ) but are 2 different POVs of the same topic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please consider these things, Bryce (besides indenting your replies), while WP:TOOLONG is only a guideline, it also a physical limit, after which the server will go "teats up" as we used to say in the Army. But it also points to WP:TLDR, do you really want to lose your reader? We are not addressing articles in the abstract, my 8 year old niece is who I edit for.
But I feel your concerns about "Criticism of Microsoft" are adequately addressed at the "Content forking" article § Articles whose subject is a POV, and that if that section is not adequate for you, then indeed, take your arguments to the Talk page at Wikipedia:Content forking so that we may address them there all at once. In a nutshell, § 2.3 stipulates that "Articles whose subject is a POV" are an "Acceptable type[] of forking". In other words, the article is, by definition, POV, the content is not, or at least need not be. Simply improve the content there.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I indented this just for you. First off Criticism vs non criticism is not "Articles whose subject is a POV" If we have two topics ( say Communism and Capitalism ) there is no problem with 2 articles. however Communism =/= Criticism of Capitalism. even if the ideology does criticize capitalism. Criticism of Microsoft and "Microsoft" ( or "Non-Criticism of Microsoft") are 2 Articles treating the same subject. the subject is Microsoft. 1 Topic does not get two articles. 2 topics can get 2 articles. 3 topics can get 3 articles , etc. But tell me how the "topic" is different in Criticism of Microsoft and Microsoft. if you can truly tell me that they have 2 separate topics I'd be really interested in hearing it. ( I don't mean any of this to sound heated but I do want to make sure we get to the heart of the issue) Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Request edit on 19 June 2014

Kevin1234567891111 is trolling. He has made the article invalide and it is unreadable at the moment. Please revert to the version on 18th June 2014. And investigate why he was given the right to edit to begin with. test Thanks. by Oneneo1 (talk

Poor use of semicolons

First of all, there are 30 (!) semicolons in the article. This is overuse. More simple sentences would be much clearer, punchier writing. There is a false beleif among Wikians that long sentences are more sophisticated. The way to be high quality is via research, analysis, organization, and synthesis. Not making sentences too long and not making paragraphs too long! Then also, even when separate ideas are combined into sentences, the logical relationships are not clear (which is poor writing).

"Primarily in the 1990s, critics contend Microsoft used monopolistic business practices and anti-competitive strategies including refusal to deal and tying, put unreasonable restrictions in the use of its software, and used misrepresentative marketing tactics; both the U.S. Department of Justice and European Commission found the company in violation of antitrust laws."

-what is going on with that sentence? Did the critics contend in the 90s, or did MSFT use in the 90s? If the latter, then why is the modifier dangling so far from what it modifies? IF the former, then the tense is wrong. And then you are using a semicolon to join a thought without spelling out the relation (maybe I could let that pass as you seem to think it a direct followon, but don't do that when the preceding clause is soooo convoluted itself.

BTW, the follow-on sentence, although lacking a semicolon is also a mess ("Known for its interviewing process with obscure questions, various studies and ratings were generally favorable to Microsoft's diversity within the company as well as its overall environmental impact with the exception of the electronics portion of the business.")

-you've meandered amongs about 3+ different somewhat related topics here (interviewing methods, diversity, and environmentals stuff). Why not just do 2, not 3? the environmental thing is an additional librul concern...but not really as closely related as interviewing methods and diversity (both HR concerns).

-Again, you have a dangling modifier, the interviewing process refers to Microsoft, NOT to the studies and ratings that are the subject of the sentence and next to the phrase.

Going further down, I see two sentences in a row that use semicolons. Any book on writing will say to vary the sentence structure. I would LOWER your semicolons OVERALL, but if you insist on using them, then don't have two sentences in a row with them.

And then one of those sentences in a row actually has 3 clauses in a row joined by 2 semicolons, and NOT in a list type way (where they do the work of serial commas), but just joining simple sentences. I've never seen that! 69.255.27.249 (talk)

new organisation Microsoft

Operating Systems Engineering Group Terry Myerson
Devices and Studios Engineering Group Julie Larson-Green
Applications and Services Engineering Group Qi Lu
Cloud and Enterprise Engineering Group Satya Nadella
Dynamics Kirill Tatarinov
Advanced Strategy and Research Group Eric Rudder
Marketing Group Tami Reller
COO Kevin Turner
Business Development and Evangelism Group Tony Bates
Finance Group Amy Hood
Legal and Corporate Affairs Group Brad Smith
HR Group Lisa Brummel

[1]

Charging customers for access to their email accounts.

Well!

What a couple of weeks/months of frustration it has been for me trying to get back into my own account. After supplying them with all the security information requested; they took my account away and then, as Yahoo did last year; offered to give me access for a fee. Are you serious. Are your customers not the reason you exist today? This is nothing short of "corporate" bullying. I have learned a valuable lesson, have a backup of all you email info, because it's only a matter of time before your number is up and they get you. PAY UP OR ELSE! What is up with sending all the calls to a foreign call center where you have to constantly repeat everything, as if you are not already frustrated enough.

These large corporations don't have the time to care about the people who make their bank accounts "fat." We are simply a nagging child to them, someone who simply doesn't matter to their bottom line.


SHAME ON YOU ALL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.70.158 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


Please keep in mind that Wikipedia talk pages are not forums; if you have questions or comments regarding Microsoft, please contact Microsoft Support. If you have a screenshot of this happening, please add it here or add cited information under the Criticism heading. Daylen (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015

Can the image tag be changed to the image that the logo points to? The building shown in the photo doesn't represent the company as well as the logo does and so systems and APIs that use the image tag show the build instead of the logo. Drop from an olive tree (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Though I personally agree with you, this is the kind of change that needs consensus. Kharkiv07Talk 17:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad timing usage

Under Criticism there's a line that reads: "More recently, Trojan horses and other exploits have plagued numerous users due to faults in the security of Microsoft Windows and other programs."

"More recently" is not of good use in a wiki since a wiki is atemporal and not an article with defined dates. It does not express a correct information, since this line can have years for example. This line requires a change to reflect a wiki article.

An dz (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul Allen went to Washington State University, not the University of Washington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.129.81 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Viewpoint of article

I think the criticism, layoff, and US Government sections belong in the Criticism of Microsoft article and not here. Other articles like IBM and Apple's don't list such things in the primary articles. I also think the Marketing section has a strong anti-microsoft viewpoint that should be removed Strawgate (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2015

In the first paragraph under the section "History": 

   "Allen went on to pursue a degree in computer science at the University of Washington, later dropping out of school to work at Honeywell."

Please change "the University of Washington" to "Washington State University". The source that this statement came from is incorrect. Even Paul Allen's wikipedia page states that he attended Washington State University. Go cougs!

65.212.92.138 (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Word Choice

Corporation, or company? you decide. SundayRequiem (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing for us to decide here. We go along with what the sources (1, 2, 3,4) say. -- Chamith (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The linked article is technology company. Since corporations are companies, it's a non-issue. Guy (Help!) 05:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
didn't ask for your opinion, especially if you are those with interest in computers. A good article is commended on word choice, reasonable assessment, as well as WP:Lead. Anyone else besides these two individuals with computer interests who doesn't post here means that I have universal consensus [sic]. SundayRequiem (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Contrary to your views, According to most editors here, the revision in Question is sub-par, but not horrible. We'll use company if it suits your twisted logic. Done SundayRequiem (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2015

Hi there! There are some usage errors in this article. in several insatncaes the author uses "its" when s/he means "it's. E.g., in the first paragraph "Its best known for software..." should read "It's best known..." "its" is the possessive form of "it" "it's" is an abbreviation of "it is" MattyIce79 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The first paragraph says " Its best known software products are...", which is correct as it stands. There is no "for" in the article's sentence. You mention several instances of incorrect use, if you can point out where they are specifically, would be happy to check them as well. Cannolis (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Should the Surface lineup still be listed as tablets

The Microsoft Surface lineup now includes the Surface Book and Surface Hub (and maybe a Surface Phone soon) so I think we should just call it a series of Windows flagship devices.

Daylen (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2015

Please update Microsoft#Board_of_Directors because the current text is outdated.

Please change the existing text: 

Members of the board of directors as of September 2014 are: John W. Thompson, Dina Dublon, Bill Gates, Maria Klawe, David Marquardt, Mason Morfit, Satya Nadella, Charles Noski, Helmut Panke and John W. Stanton.

to the following text: 

Members of the board of directors as of December 2015 are: John W. Thompson (Chairman), Satya Nadella (CEO), Bill Gates (Founder and Technology Advisor), Charles H. Noski, Charles W. Scharf, G. Mason Morfit, Helmut Panke, John W. Stanton, Padmasree Warrior, Sandra E. Peterson and Teri L. List-Stoll.[7]

120.57.15.31 (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Critical

Parts of this article read like Microsoft's investor relations [8]page. It does not mention the negative things like launching the trusted computing initiative to improve security, then falling to make the next version of windows significantly more secure [9] and finally shutting the entire thing down[10]. It does not mention the controversy about Windows 10[11] running background searches of users content from their drive [12]and making it available to marketing partners etc[13][14][15]. All in all it only paints a rosy picture of Microsoft. DrSchlagger (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Microsoft is an article that exists. Why not there? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 12:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Microsoft Company History".
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Allan 2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b "Bill Gates: A Timeline". BBC News. BBC. July 15, 2006. Retrieved July 17, 2010.
  4. ^ Schlender, Brent (2 October 1995). "BILL GATES & PAUL ALLEN TALK CHECK OUT THE ULTIMATE BUDDY ACT IN BUSINESS HISTORY". Fortune Magazine.
  5. ^ Allen, Paul (2011). Paul Allen: Idea Man. Penguin Group. p. 91. ISBN 0141969385.
  6. ^ Staples, Betsy (August 1984). "Kay Nishi bridges the cultural gap". Creative Computing. 10 (8): 192. Retrieved July 15, 2010.
  7. ^ Microsoft Board of Directors
  8. ^ https://www.microsoft.com/investor/default.aspx
  9. ^ http://www.ghacks.net/2015/11/10/microsoft-security-bulletins-for-november-2015/
  10. ^ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/19/ms_shutters_twc/
  11. ^ http://lifehacker.com/what-windows-10s-privacy-nightmare-settings-actually-1722267229
  12. ^ http://www.computerworld.com/article/2956773/emerging-technology/microsoft-responds-to-windows-10-privacy-policy-concerns.html
  13. ^ http://www.techrepublic.com/article/windows-10-violates-your-privacy-by-default-heres-how-you-can-protect-yourself/
  14. ^ http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2015/07/29/wind-nos/#gref
  15. ^ http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/28/9409557/microsoft-windows-10-privacy-concerns-response

Microsoft products for iOS

Hi.

I am not sure how important this topic is and how much coverage we should have. I took this screenshot last night from my iTunes.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8tNkKG_EzjZRElBT1drdDRaTU0/view?pref=2&pli=1

I am not sure if Microsoft has such an extensive lineup on Windows Store. (I don't have Windows 8 or 10.) What I'd like an opinion on is: Thinking about due weight, can we have this subject in the article?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No mention of Windows 8.1 or Windows 10

May I create additions to add information on Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 release dates in the appropraite positions under "1.5 2011–present: Rebranding, Windows 8, Surface and Nokia devices?" I'm shocked there's nothing there.

I will cite sources and add them as appropriately.

Thanks! Kyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylelerner (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft engineering groups and Microsoft#Businesses are not consistent.

These two essentially mean the same. Both talk about Microsoft divisions.

1. Microsoft engineering groups 2. Microsoft#Businesses

Definitely Microsoft engineering groups should be more descriptive than Microsoft#Businesses which should be short and brief.

Microsoft engineering groups article looks updated with info as of 2016. But, Microsoft#Businesses still has very old information. Even it also has an outdated tag (which nobody took care about).

I request the article administrator to refer Microsoft engineering groups or any other 3rd party source and update Microsoft#Businesses with latest information as of 2016.

170.248.189.79 (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an "article administrator" here. (When someone thinks they are that, we point them at WP:OWN.) Jeh (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
LOL! See my talk page, Jeh! —Codename Lisa (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Windows 10 Addition

As much as this should be getting updated, the Present marker is invalid when it comes to the Microsoft Windows® Operating systems. The is Windows 10® and not Windows 8®.


--Etanarvazac (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2016

Hi there!! in this article there is nothing about Microsoft HoloLens, Microsoft Lumia, Microsoft October 6th event, recent achievement with Windows 10 and Universal Windows Platform. I would like to edit them all, or someone should insert this articles there Debtanu17 (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
File:Red icon with gradient background.svg Information: The point the user who originally made this request is saying that there isn't all of what Microsoft has done on this page. Adding such will resolve the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etanarvazac (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2016

The statement referring to Android in the statement, "As of 2015, Microsoft is market dominant in both the IBM PC-compatible operating system (while it lost the majority of the overall operating system market to Android)" is untrue, since Windows and OSX are definitely more popular and dominate a larger group of the market than Android. 16:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Eliw50 (talk)

 Not done The statement is sourced by a third-party and I've verified the statement right now. Feel free to find a source which proves your change. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@QEDK: So, where did you verify it? - since there's no inline ref for it in the article. The statement is true, yes, but only once you understand that "overall operating system market" includes smartphones and tablets - but that is not at all clear from the context. In any case there is no reference for that statement, third-party or otherwise, in the article, and without the context the statement violates our principle of least astonishment. Furthermore the claim in general, and Android in particular, are not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and without that the statement does not belong in the lede. Jeh (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. "Over operating system market" must mean the combination of server, workstation, desktop, console and mobile devices. According to StatCounter, Android overtook Windows 7 in December 2015. Not that I disagree with anything here...
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Windows 98 footnote

In 1996, Microsoft new products in Redmond Washington was shown proprietary detailed specifications from J. S. Wright. Microsoft head of new products said "Its the greatest thing they have ever seen". It was used to devlop much of the workings of Wndows 98, primarily the Original concept of the Dynamic link as text is entered on word, or anywhere else, the user can click on text such as a doman name and instantly drill into that website, and drill endlessly forward or backword in new pages or windows. Even more amazing was that the system had been developed and implemented first on the supercomputer IBM series changing the "dumb" green screen batch processor into the most revolutionary user friendly system in existence n any platfom. The value of enrichmnt to Micosoft in the largest most successful softwre release in history is in the 10s of billions, and in litigation could result in a Trillin dollar reward making Mr Wright the wealthiest person in history. Joelstevenwright (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2016

i want to because you have left out office as one of there services

Thanks :) Tylerthefinder (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It's unclear exactly what part of the text should incorporate your suggested change. Also, Office is mentioned under "Microsoft Business Division". — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit request 17 May 2016

Under the "Business Division" section there should be an inclusion of the Microsoft department called, "US Small and Midsize Business (SMB)". This is a subdivision of the Business Division that deals with small businesses. They operate a regularly updated blog full of content geared towards entrepreneurs and they also have a yearly contest that awards small businesses up to $20,000 in prize money.

Lessthnpar (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Unambiguous advertisement. —Codename Lisa (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hotmail

PLEASE CHANGE OUTLOOK BACK TO MSN HOTMAIL. I do not like outlook one bit and most of my family do not like it either. So _PLEASE PLEASE!! CHANGE IT BACK Thank yOU [details removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perry1920 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Perry1920: This page is part of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. It's not a way to contact anyone at Microsoft. I have removed your email address to protect your privacy. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Citation

I found a missing citation for the friendship of the two.

http://www.biography.com/people/bill-gates-9307520#early-life

Ldrrp1 (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Microsoft/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JerrySa1 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Expect comments by tomorrow.JerrySa1 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to fail this nomination, https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=microsoft&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 shows that this article is a carbon copy in some areas to one of the sources, most of the history section, the entirety of the logo section, and more. A part of the Businesses section copies of another source, seen here, https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=750894695&action=compare&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.activebrains.co.uk%2Fmicrosoft.html. Speaking of the business section, it is tagged as outdated, which I see as still valid.. JerrySa1 (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This page can be improved once this page meets copyright requirements and the business section is updated.JerrySa1 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@JerrySa1: I've never tried to interpret the results of an Earwig report, but I was surprised by your copyvio finding and had a look. Are you referring to Earwig's "99.0% confidence match with academia.edu/9869063/International_Business_Environment"? That's a 2014 student piece that is clearly a copy of the Wikipedia article; the history section of the Wikipedia article has been stable since before 2014, and the student work cites the Wikipedia article as one of its sources. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't notice the fact Wikipedia was cited. There's still the issue of the second area though. That's still not enough for quickfail, so this needs an actual review.JerrySa1 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@JerrySa1: I think ActiveBrains also copied from Wikipedia. If the section had been copied from ActiveBrains, the article history at Wikipedia would show the section being created in only one or two edits by the editor violating the copyright. In fact the history shows that the section has been worked on by many editors over several years. The phrase "As of December 2009" is also strong evidence, I think, as it's hard to see how a writer at ActiveBrains would use that wording if it were not copied from Wikipedia. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@John of Reading: Yes, I see that. The Justice department piece may of been plagiarized to but this seems like a quite moot point. Either way the review is closed, and if it is opened again I don't know when the submitter will respond if at all. This and another review were his first edits since 2014, so I am unsure if he can even answer any points.JerrySa1 (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Citation

I found a missing citation for the friendship of the two.

http://www.biography.com/people/bill-gates-9307520#early-life

Ldrrp1 (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Microsoft/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JerrySa1 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Expect comments by tomorrow.JerrySa1 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to fail this nomination, https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=microsoft&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 shows that this article is a carbon copy in some areas to one of the sources, most of the history section, the entirety of the logo section, and more. A part of the Businesses section copies of another source, seen here, https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=750894695&action=compare&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.activebrains.co.uk%2Fmicrosoft.html. Speaking of the business section, it is tagged as outdated, which I see as still valid.. JerrySa1 (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This page can be improved once this page meets copyright requirements and the business section is updated.JerrySa1 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@JerrySa1: I've never tried to interpret the results of an Earwig report, but I was surprised by your copyvio finding and had a look. Are you referring to Earwig's "99.0% confidence match with academia.edu/9869063/International_Business_Environment"? That's a 2014 student piece that is clearly a copy of the Wikipedia article; the history section of the Wikipedia article has been stable since before 2014, and the student work cites the Wikipedia article as one of its sources. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't notice the fact Wikipedia was cited. There's still the issue of the second area though. That's still not enough for quickfail, so this needs an actual review.JerrySa1 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@JerrySa1: I think ActiveBrains also copied from Wikipedia. If the section had been copied from ActiveBrains, the article history at Wikipedia would show the section being created in only one or two edits by the editor violating the copyright. In fact the history shows that the section has been worked on by many editors over several years. The phrase "As of December 2009" is also strong evidence, I think, as it's hard to see how a writer at ActiveBrains would use that wording if it were not copied from Wikipedia. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@John of Reading: Yes, I see that. The Justice department piece may of been plagiarized to but this seems like a quite moot point. Either way the review is closed, and if it is opened again I don't know when the submitter will respond if at all. This and another review were his first edits since 2014, so I am unsure if he can even answer any points.JerrySa1 (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposing replacement of headquarters picture

I took a photograph of Building 92 (the visitor center) this year in May which was in full sunlight with the sun to my back and in which the current Microsoft logo is clearly visible, unlike the current photo of Building 17 in the infobox which was taken on an overcast day and does not show the logo. Any objections before I upload that photo and transfer the infobox photo to the article on the Microsoft headquarters campus? --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Emphasize Cloud in the history

Microsoft current history is mostly taken from the consumer perspective. It might be also relevant to consider the business/revenue perspective. In the last years, we saw a clear shift of the business model from Microsoft, moving from a Software provider (Windows, Office) to a Service provider (Azure, Office-365), especially in the cloud! According to [1], most growing revenue at Microsoft are coming from services in the cloud! Thus, I would suggest the article owner/moderator to rewrite a bit the current period "2014-present" of Microsoft history, as also the dedicated article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.65.52.7 (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

formerly stylized as Microsoft

isnt that meant to be

formerly stylized as MicroSoft

??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.40.18 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2017

Microsoft was founded by Paul Allen and Bill Gates on April 4, 1975, to develop and sell BASIC interpreters for the Altair 8800. It rose to dominate the personal computer operating system market with MS-DOS in the mid-1980s, followed by Microsoft Windows. The company's 1986 initial public offering (IPO), and subsequent rise in its share price, created three billionaires and an estimated 12,000 millionaires among Microsoft employees. Since the 1990s, it has increasingly diversified from the operating system market and has made a number of corporate acquisitions. In May 2011, Microsoft acquired Skype Technologies for $8.5 billion, and in May 2014, Microsoft bought Minecraft for $2.5 billion, and in December 2016, Microsoft bought LinkedIn for $26.2 billion.[10] 180.148.106.170 (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: We don't need to list every acquisition Microsoft has made in the lead section. The Minecraft acquisition is already identified in this article, and the acquisition of Mojang is already listed in List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2017

About the photo, change the description "Front lobby entrance of building 17" to "Front lobby entrance of building 16".


You can just go to Google map for verification: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.643144,-122.1305715,3a,21.4y,139.64h,85.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s02x4UpS6RFlIw5QusZ-txA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Thanks, Allelujava (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: The entrances may look similar, but Google Street View fails WP:RS, as the sidewalk in the photograph does not match what is shown for Building 16. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This section needs to be changed pretty badly. It's kinda junk.

This comment has been added by Strawgate within this edit on 30 June 2015 (over two years ago!) and has changed since, until I replaced it with a maintainance template yesterday. @Strawgate: Do you recall what the orginal concern was, and has it been resolved yet? Also pinging @Wbm1058: as initiator of the concern-awareness. Lordtobi (✉) 16:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2017

December instead of Decemver in the second paragraph 2602:306:CC97:690:2155:C532:C9E0:664A (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Keira1996 03:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017

Microsoft is the founder of couches 205.126.15.89 (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Couches? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2017

42.106.111.145 (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Gulumeemee (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween documents should appear in this article

Or monopolistic behaviours like EEE.--87.219.145.204 (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Your comment is unintelligible. Toddst1 (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The IP seems to be referring to Embrace, extend and extinguish and Halloween documents, and suggesting they should have further coverage in the article. IP - in future please avoid abbreviations and jargon, or at least use wikilinks. Keira1996 23:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2018

Microsoft logo 1975-1980 is not correct. Swooshyy (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Swooshyy: What is the correct logo? Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Vague requests to add, update, modify, or improve an image are generally not honored unless you can point to a specific image already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that you would like included on this article. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Brad Smith (American lawyer)

Microsoft is in the news a lot lat few days mostly represented by its CLO Brad Smith, about whom we have a brand new article. The article at the moment seems very positive and one sided and reads a bit like autobiography. I think it would be good if more people read it and improved on it. Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

E-Waste Innovator Will Go to Jail for Making Windows Restore Disks That Only Worked With Valid Licenses

I think it would be good to add something about this case, but not sure where exactly:

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Its an incredibly fascinating intellectual property legal case worthy of full coverage, but its really not that big a deal in Microsoft history. I don't think this would be the right page for it. Indrian (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2018

-[ Added to after " one of the most valuable companies in the world " ]- with 3rd place on the Company Value Scale. [ leave a link to the website for it here ]

-[ Note, do NOT PUT IN THE EDIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ]- The reason why I did this was to make the page make more sense. Addust (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible removal from list

Entries in List of colors: G–M contained links to this page.

The entries are :

  • Microsoft red
  • Microsoft blue
  • Microsoft yellow
  • Microsoft green

I don't see any evidence that these colors are discussed in this article and plan to delete them from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

If someone decides that these colors should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2018

Board of Directors

The company is run by a board of directors made up of mostly company outsiders, as is customary for publicly traded companies. Members of the board of directors as of January 2018 are Bill Gates, Satya Nadella, Reid Hoffman, Lee Johnson, Teri L. List-Stoll, Charles Noski, Helmut Panke, Sandi Peterson, Penny Pritzker, Charles W. Scharf, Arne Sorenson, John W. Stanton, John W. Thompson and Padmasree Warrior.[2] GoodCoz (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/FY-2016-Q4/press-release-webcast
  2. ^ "Microsoft Board of Directors". Microsoft News Center (Press release). Microsoft. Retrieved Oct 8, 2016.
 Done. Lordtobi (✉) 06:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

Hi all,

A new article by the name of Microsoft Casual Games has been created, but has next to no Reliable Sources for it, failing WP:GNG, and WP:NCORP. I suggest merging what little information from the article to this article, or another suitible location. Please also see AfD regarding this, suggesting a merge over deletion. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, I assume the AfD was speedy-kept due to your recommendation to merge. As SoWhy stated, you could just be bold and merge the article in question. However, given that the article is completely unsourced, you could also (boldly) just redirect the article. I don't think we need a separate merger dicussion for this. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 08:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Lordtobi - I'm quite unfamiliar with merge discussions, but as the AfD is still in progress, don't I have to wait until this is over to drastically alter the article? (Such as change to a redirect). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, I didn't realize the AfD is still running. Usually merge requests are opened when a merge is suggested and you try to reach a consensus for that. In this case the consensus is already present (or rather will be when the AfD is over). Hence, once the AfD is over, just be bold, no need for a seperate discussion. Lordtobi (✉) 08:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD (as keep). I think Microsoft Studios might be a better target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Apple is again the most valuable publicly traded company in the world

Microsoft is no longer the most valuable company, Apple dethroned Microsoft again after a little time of being dethroned. --Diaments 7.0 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it sure that Microsoft is founded on April 4, 1975?

Many documents published before 2005 (20th anniversary of Windows) said Microsoft was founded in 1975, but they didn't provide month and day. I wonder Gates and Paul created the anniversary in later.

That November, the Gates-Allen partnership was christened Microsoft.

— Remnick, David (2001). The New Gilded Age: The New Yorker Looks at the Culture of Affluence. Random House Publishing.

Is this mean Microsoft was named in November 1975? Thanks. Darklanlan (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Darklanlan, April 4 is correct as per their website. Lordtobi (✉) 16:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Microsoft gathered personal information from 300,000 government users of Microsoft Office ProPlus, without permission and without documentation

I feel like this information should go somewhere but not sure where, any suggestions?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Bosque (programming language) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bosque (programming language). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TJRC (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Financial Ratios

ADD MARKET CAPITALISATION AUTOREGRESSIVE -5 0 ARIMAarima XTRAPOLATED +5 2020 GBP1.2TRILLION Bikrahmam (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Question

There is problem to Connect perfectly Windows with IPad, etc: is this problem "cause of" Microsoft and Apple or is there Real "computers-natural block"? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.65.148 (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Number of billionaires and millionaires

The lead has "... created three billionaires and an estimated 12,000 millionaires among Microsoft employees."

The section on "1985–1994" has "making an estimated four billionaires and 12,000 millionaires from Microsoft employees."

The latter claim cites this nytime.com article which says "While the exact number is not known, it is reasonable to assume that there were approximately 10,000 Microsoft millionaires created by the year 2000."

Weirdly, this businessinsider.com article has "Some analysts estimate that thanks to the stock options the company gave to early employees, Microsoft had created three billionaires and as many as 12,000 millionaires by 2005" but that phrase links to the nytime.com which does not mention the number of billionaires and says "approximately 10,000 Microsoft millionaires."

I believe there are four billionaires, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen, and Charles Simonyi. I suspect we should use "an estimated 10,000 millionaires" rather than 12,000. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with using 10 K rather than 12 K if we can't cite anything which clearly confirms the 12 K figure. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Question

There is problem to Connect perfectly Windows with IPad, etc: is this problem "cause of" Microsoft and Apple or is there Real "computers-natural block"? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.65.148 (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Number of billionaires and millionaires

The lead has "... created three billionaires and an estimated 12,000 millionaires among Microsoft employees."

The section on "1985–1994" has "making an estimated four billionaires and 12,000 millionaires from Microsoft employees."

The latter claim cites this nytime.com article which says "While the exact number is not known, it is reasonable to assume that there were approximately 10,000 Microsoft millionaires created by the year 2000."

Weirdly, this businessinsider.com article has "Some analysts estimate that thanks to the stock options the company gave to early employees, Microsoft had created three billionaires and as many as 12,000 millionaires by 2005" but that phrase links to the nytime.com which does not mention the number of billionaires and says "approximately 10,000 Microsoft millionaires."

I believe there are four billionaires, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen, and Charles Simonyi. I suspect we should use "an estimated 10,000 millionaires" rather than 12,000. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with using 10 K rather than 12 K if we can't cite anything which clearly confirms the 12 K figure. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Microsoft for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Microsoft is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Microsoft (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 07:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

IB "Key people"

Per {{Infobox company}}:

Up to four key individuals closely associated with the company.

(emphasis mine)

Currently, there are nine people listed, more than double the limit. Some of the entries should be eliminated based on relevance. Lordtobi (✉) 14:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Unbelievable: Deletion of the Antitrust/Monopoly issues

Though everybody knows that Microsoft is one of the closest companies to having a monopol in the area of business computers the article does no more document this drama for the worldwide software business, does not even mention the big Antitrustcase agains Microsoft.

Hugh Meadies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.116.141.115 (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Tax avoidance

While the current version of the article mentions some of it (news reports from 2015), much more important are these: 

Microsoft had shifted at least $39 billion in U.S. profits to Puerto Rico, where the company’s tax consultants, KPMG, had persuaded the territory’s government to give Microsoft a tax rate of nearly 0%. Microsoft had justified this transfer with a ludicrous-sounding deal: It had sold its most valuable possession — its intellectual property — to an 85-person factory it owned in a small Puerto Rican city. Over years of work, the IRS uncovered evidence...
Etc.

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-irs-decided-to-get-tough-against-microsoft-microsoft-got-tougher

-> Let us research RS and add it.

Zezen (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Store Closure

The paragraph relating to closing stores indefinitely could start:

In March 2020, ...

On March q7, 2020, ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonguymiller (talk • contribs) 12:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Tax evasion

As is, this page is woefully and inadequately giving due weight (or any weight at all besides a few internal links among how many links?) and prominence to any sort of neutral or negative information regarding the corporation. I get that there are numerous links to Criticism of Microsoft, but a casual/average reader - i.e., normal human being looking for an overview of the company - is likely going to miss it. I propose a subsection on this page with a VERY brief overview of criticism, including tax evasion. Thank you.Oathed (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse anyone (even a big corporation) of a crime you're going to need better than activist sources. - MrOllie (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyone know what the acronym MSFT means.

MicroSoft Financial Times ? 194.207.86.26 (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It is the NASDAQ trading symbol for the company. See https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/msft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevep001 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Microsoft makes things like Xbox and internet explorer 222.152.66.42 (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Microsoft. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Dawnseeker2000 07:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Produce a trusted source for "Microsoft donates to politicians who deny climate change"

There are not very clear reasons as to why someone would include this line without producing a solid article/news coverage, in the environment section. meowmeow \S-) (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020

Can I edit the page?Because I want to add a wikilink. 2600:8801:1280:224B:CC81:29CE:E68:7CFB (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect citation/citation typo #45

Citation #45 Tilly, Chris. "The History of Microsoft Windows CE". HPC:Factor. Archived from the original on September 21, 2008. Retrieved August 18, 2008.

Should be Tilley, Chris, not Tilly. See https://www.hpcfactor.com/qlink/?linkID=4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.91.49 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverse clauses in sentence

In the second paragraph, the clauses about Linkedin and Skype should be reversed. Something along the lines of:

From: "Since the 1990s, it has increasingly diversified from the operating system market and has made a number of corporate acquisitions, their largest being the acquisition of LinkedIn for $26.2 billion in December 2016,[6] followed by their acquisition of Skype Technologies for $8.5 billion in May 2011.[7]"

To: "Since the 1990s, it has increasingly diversified from the operating system market and has made a number of corporate acquisitions, including their acquisition of Skype Technologies for $8.5 billion in May 2011,[6] followed by their largest acquisition to date of LinkedIn for $26.2 billion in December 2016.[7]" Stracci~909 (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Contractors

A few paragraphs on the companies that produce Microsoft hardware would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:4601:c053:2d39:f2c8:d5b4:df2e (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft/Archive_9&oldid=1164847426"