User talk:Warren/0604

Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs

Just wanted to let you know that I moved the Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs article, and that you might want to update your user page accordingly. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 04:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. :-) Warrens 05:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Case: Transparent

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before your begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures.

Sorry, that was my error. You did not indicate you were willing to accept assignments. I modified the assignment. --Fasten 12:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article idea

I've got an idea, and I'm curious to know what you think: "History of Windows Vista development", or "Timeline of Windows Vista development". I think between all the build information, the PDC 2003 introduction, the "restart", and other subjects like how TC and XP SP2 delayed development, we could build a really great article so that "Windows Vista" and "Features new to Windows Vista" don't have to have to cover that. Thoughts? Warrens 00:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very good idea. Also, when Vista will be released, nobody will care about the build list, and stuff like that. This means that we can start cleaning the Vista article out. How about "Development of Windows Vista"? — Alex ^(T|C|E) 01:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! Let's go with that name. Warrens 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista split suggestion

I am wondering what you think about Bdude's suggestion about splitting Windows Vista in two. I think it's unnecessary, and his suggestion doesn't make a lot of sense. And you are planning on creating a Windows Vista development article anyway. Please let me know on my talk page about what you think. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 05:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think once the historical stuff gets moved away to a break-out article, the article will look a lot cleaner, and that may address his concerns fairly well for the time being. Warrens 05:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we do anything about the tag? Or maybe get started on the article? — Alex ^(T|C|E) 05:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Windows Vista. :-) Warrens 06:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Article

Woopsie- looks like when I was rolling back on Microsoft, User:Voice of All got to it first. I'm not sure what happened, but it appears my revert was of the incorrect copy. Sorry about that! - Chris Saribay 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured it was something a little weird like that. Oh well, happens to all of us. :-) Warrens 19:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hey Warren. Thanks a lot for the barnstar! I was thinking about giving you a barnstar, but you beat me. You dseserve this much more than me. Keep up the great work you've been doing! — Alex ^(T|C|E) 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For outstanding and tireless work on starting and keeping Windows-related articles up-to-date, neutral, and accurate. Keep up the great work! – Alex

Wow, hey thanks! We've still got a lot of work ahead of us, but I think it's going to be a lot of fun. Warrens 05:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - thanks! We still do have a bit of work to do. Most of the top-level articles in Category:Microsoft are essentially taken care of POV and cleanup-wise as well as those in MSN... I think we have a ways to go on the rest of the windows-related stuff though :). Thanks for the compliments too BTW! Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 10:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me?

Why did you remove that copyvio notice on Order of Aviz? --Syrthiss 20:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did? Must've been a Popups-misfiring, sorry about that! Warrens 20:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it could be a wikipedia mirror though.... Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 20:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats one of the possibilities. I'm hoping someone can clear it up. I restored the copyvio notice for now. :) --Syrthiss 20:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My last edit to Windows Vista

Oops, I accidentally messed up your edits. Sorry about that, good thing the revision history is there. :-) By the way, I won't be very active in the coming weeks, have to take care of a few things. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 09:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S'aright, I know you love your TOCleft. ;-) I've got an inter-city move coming at the beginning of May so I'll be a bit slow around that time, too. Warrens 09:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah. I just don't like space being wasted in an article, especially if the TOC is fairly long. About the move, I wish you good luck. Moves tend to be stressing. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 09:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.NET Bot Framework

Hi, thanks for applying to use the .NET Bot Framework. Your request has been approved, and you should have already received instructions as to accessing the source code of the framework. You have also been added to the Spam list for announcement emails regarding the framework. If you do not wish to receive these announcements, please feel free to remove yourself from this list. Messages sent will involve announcements of new versions, features and other important information. Thanks, and enjoy your use of the framework, Werdna bot ^(DNBF)/_T\^C on behalf of Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 08:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WMA Janus

I removed the WMA Janus section from the "Windows Media Audio" article because: 1) It's incorrect. Janus was the codename for the DRM update - not a codename for WMA10. 2) DRM is a feature separate from the WMA codec. Windows Media Audio is a codec (actually a series of codecs) and as such is completely independent of any DRM technology. The DRM protection is attached to the ASF file container, not to the WMA audio codec. DRM has no place in an article about audio compression technology, other than as a sidenote about possible usage.

BTW, the section wasn't removed "inexplicably". I left a comment in the article disccusion page explaining why I was removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.106 (talk • contribs)

Subverting Windows licensing

In the future you might actually want to read, before you think you know it all and start removing links you think are subverting Windows licensing. The tutorial link you removed actually encourages developers to NOT hack Windows Home and to use Windows XP Pro and NOT violate the Windows licensing. RazorX 15:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIS article domination

First off Warrens. I contribute my web development knowledge to Wikipedia freely to help other young web developers weed through the enormous about of false information out there, and I also support Wikipedia finacially.

Let's set this straight Warrens. You are the one who started all this. First you falsely accused me of subverting the IIS Windows licensing. Where is your "proof" of that in my IIS tutorial exactly Warrens? Uhh no where is the answer. Go read it again and send me the text that violates anything at all. Is it a crime to want to help web developers to learn how to properly install and IIS web server and to actually use it? Uhh no it's not Warrens. Next, you stated that what I was doing was for my non-notable web site promotion. With that comment you clearly violated the policy of Wikipedia civility. My web site is just a portfolio site at the moment. I have "nothing" on that site to promote or sell. You need to learn that you are not the only person who wants to contribute to these articles. So far, all I see in the history list is where you dominate the IIS article and delete everyone's input but your own. The article might as well be called IIS article written only by Warrens. You are not the only person who has something to contribute to the IIS article Warrens. You need to learn how not to be a "hot head" and calm down and let others contribute to Wikipedia. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?...everyone working together to put together helpful articles? Or is Wikipedia all about Warrens deletions based on his personal opinion? I'm going to keep putting up helpful resources and tutorials to the IIS article to help young web developers understand how to install IIS, and I am prepared to fight you every day until the end of time. I believe it's very important for people to not only understand what IIS is but also how to install it and make it useful, and I will not allow you to dominate and delete helpful resources and tutorials that show people how to actually use IIS as a web server.

And one last thing Warrens, don't you think your constant deletions and your sour comments only hurt Wikpedia? The thing is this, if you don't allow people to contribute then they will get frustrated because you delete everything they do. Now you are creating a situation where people don't want to help and don't contribute to Wikipedia financially either. Perhaps the Wikipedia admins might be interested to know that you may be driving people to NOT contribute financially because you are frustrating them by dominating all the articles you have a personal interest in.

In the end, it's people like you who will bring and end to the Wikipedia effort all together, because you dominate the articles daily and don't allow people to contribute. Everyone will get tired of that and they will stop sending in money to help out.

RazorX 15:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sum total of your contributions to the Internet Information Services article has been to add a link to your personal web site. That's it. While I'm sure this will help improve your site's Google ranking or whatever, it doesn't really help improve the quality of the article, or of the encyclopedia at large. External links – especially personal web sites – don't really have any lasting value, since external web sites a) Go offline, b) Won't get translated into other languages for use by other language Wikipedias, and c) Aren't subject to ongoing improvements via the Wikipedia editorial process. Are you here to contribute to the betterment of the encyclopedia? If so, by all means, be bold and expand the article with information you feel is important! It's a much, much better use than expending your time & energy leaving lengthy, poorly-informed rants on my talk page talking about how you're going to "fight" me or whatever it is you're going on about.

Oh, and, please feel free to contact the Wikipedia administrators if you really feel that put off by someone removing an external link to your personal web site. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear from you. The page to start at is here: Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention.

Warrens 18:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a lost cause Warrens. Like a politician you carefully avoided my points about your false licensing accusations for the tutorial. It's not a personal web site. It's actually one of the most comprehensive (took me days to put it together) tutorials on how to install IIS 5.1. It's such a major crime in trying to show people how to install and use IIS 5.1 isn't it Warrens..? And if one day the link is dead, then guess what genius? It gets removed, just like any Microsoft link would if they changed the address or removed it. I will contact Wikipedia admins, because your threats are false, and you are a bluffer. There are "several" articles within Wikipedia that have external links to tutorials and other resources. So you better get started on deleting ALL of those links too! One last thing before I let you go for good Warrens...the The Apache HTTP Server article has this tutorial link: Installing and configuring Apache on Windows XP - step-by-step tutorial describing virtual name-based hosting on Windows XP. If the Apache server article has one why can't IIS have one? Why? Because Warrens only dominates his personal little IIS article, that's why. So I guess folks, NO article at all in Wikipedia can have a link to ANY tutorial or ANY helpful resource according to Warrens the almighty. Please man, all of your arguments are so weak and simply drowning in self delusion and self justification. You are yet another person who can never be wrong. You're too "hot headed" Warrens and you can't be reasoned with. I've more than proven my points with sited facts rather than my personal opinions like you...such a waste. RazorX 20:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I remind you that your time would be much better spent improving articles on Wikipedia than complaining about actions taken by other editors. Only one of these two activities results in a better encyclopedia. Warrens 21:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thanks for the barnstar, Warrens. It was really unexpected. Thank you very much, again. --so U m y a S ch 03:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winsupersite/Paul Thurrot images

Hi, in some images that has been uploaded (I do not remember which), I saw that Paul Turrot has given permission to use the screenshots he uses in his articles. Does that mean any of his images can be uploaded? Because these two screenshots [1] and [2], if used in the Features new to Windows Vista would be good, I feel, as no other articles show these pics. --so U m y a S ch 09:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'd asked for permission to use a few screenshots for older builds of Longhorn that would be extremely difficult for us to make on our own. I'm of the opinion that we try to should avoid using other people's screenshots for newer builds, if at all possible. I have a hunch that we'll be replacing all these images in the coming months anyhow, so for the time being, just do what you like and we'll work from there. The Microsoft-sanctioned PR image for WPG isn't very good, so it'd be nice to replace it. Warrens 18:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backporting

I would like to see an obvious statment along with each new technology whether or not it will be madecavaidable to previous versions of windows. Perhaps a single bullet point at the end of each subheading's paragraph stating "IE7 will be avaidable to all windows OSs" or "WinFX will be avaidable to XP" etc. It could also be helpful if the article were to state all those that are unique to Vista (like aero). Thoughts? mastodon 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the name of the article suggests, pretty much everything listed on this page is going to be unique to Vista. There's no good reason to weigh down this article with all sorts of semantics about whether or not a described feature is going to be available in other operating systems as well... there are other articles where this would be more suitable. Warrens 19:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK, I see your point. I was just wondering about those that will be avaidable to XP. I have heard through the grapevine that WinFX will be backported, and IE7 is suitable for all Windows versions. Is this true? If so, I would like to see it clear in the article. mastodon 00:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WinFX and IE7 aren't being "backported". They are being designed for and released for the NT 5.x platforms and Vista in the same general timeframe. The WinFX, WinFS, Windows Defender, Internet Explorer, and Windows Driver Foundation articles all note the wider availability of these features which will also be in Vista. Warrens 01:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thankyou, thats cool. One last question: will they all be made avaidable through Windows Update? Possibly as a service pack? mastodon 16:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Windows-stub

File:Nuvola samba Windows.png is not fair use. It is GFDL, because it is part of File:Nuvola devices samba unmount.png, which in turn is part of the GFDLed Nuvola icon set. This means it is free to use on Template:Windows-stub. If you have any further questions, I would appreciate them on my talk page. Seahen 19:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Server 2003

Like there are separate articles for the different editions of Win XP (Media center edition, x64 edition et al), do you think there is should be separate articles for the different versions of Windows server 2003 (Datacenter edition, enterprise edn, storage server edn etc)? Or should the relevant sections in the Windows Server 2003 article be expanded? I think doing the latter will make the article bloated. --so U m y a S ch 05:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this played itself out in the Windows 2000 articles, with the end result being that everything got redirected back to the main Windows 2000 article, because there wasn't enough unique information. We should probably follow that lead, and think more in terms of expanding the existing Windows Server 2003 article to properly discuss every edition. If that article gets really big then yeah, we can make break-out articles, but we're really quite a long ways away from that right now. Warrens 19:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

welcomes

It is quite nice to welcome new editors, but perhaps it's not the best thing to give such a happy welcome to editors who have done nothing but vandalize (for example, User:Good2.) Thoughts? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's really important that we don't bite the newcomers. Many esteemed editors started out doing silly things, and Wikipedia will benefit from having users stick around and "get" what we're trying to do here, rather than be turned off the process forever. Welcome messages help to ensure that the important policies are placed in front of a new editor, and it's better to try and fail, rather than not try at all. Warrens 15:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.NET Bot Framework Update 1

Hi there, I've just finally managed to upload a new version of the .NET Bot Framework. It now has support for getting the links to a particular article, using the Editor.GetLinksToArticle(string Article) function. All functions are properly documented using XML documentation. Many of you had issues with opening the ZIP file - these issues have now been properly resolved. The new version can be found at the usual URL. Thanks, Werdna bot ^(DNBF)/_T\^C on behalf of Werdna648 ^T/_C\^@ 02:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]