User talk:Warren

Archives
	Archive 1 — January / February 2006; Archive 2 — March / April 2006; Archive 3 — May / June 2006; Archive 4 — July / Aug / Sep 2006; Archive 5 — Oct / Nov 2006; Archive 6 — Dec / Jan / Feb 2007; Archive 7 — Mar / Apr 2007;

Warren's talk page.

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

Heh

~~Knew you'd revert me. http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/robert/archive/2007/05/11/windows-server-longhorn-is-now-windows-server-2008.aspx — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oops, slow thinking today. You didn't revert me, but that's my source for Windows Server 2008. — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... some Microsoft sign-up pages are saying Windows Server 2008 now. You know me, I'm a stickler for these things, but this looks like the real thing... run with it! -/- Warren 00:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Open open open.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Open open open.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Alex^(U|C|E) 08:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to let you know since the bot didn't. --— Alex^(U|C|E) 08:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Windows Vista

Hey Warrens, would you mind hopping over to Criticism of Windows Vista and puting your $0.02 in? Right now it's a one vs. one arguement between me and Zubenzenubi and I would appiciate a third opinion. He says his information is valid, I say it's unattribuateble and source-less, he adds the info, I revert it, he reverts me, I revert him and we aren't getting anywhere. Paul Cyr 20:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista Networking

Hi, I was working on the Networking section of the Technical features new to Windows Vista article but felt it was becoming too long. As such, I expanded the section as a full fledged article in my sandbox. Please take a look and comment on whether I should go ahead with splitting the content to some other article like Vista networking technologies, putting only the summary in the technical features article.

P.S.: Please reply on my talk page. --soum (0_o) 07:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Welcome back bro! While you were on break, the RfA reform had heated up and four admin accounts had been hijacked. That was the only fun you missed. :D On the article side, Microsoft Silverlight and Microsoft SoftGrid have seen some action. Meanwhile, I was organizing the Microsoft navigation templates. Vista networking technologies has been forked off from Technical features new to Windows Vista, but whether the name is okay is still up for debate.

Recently, we are having a problem on how to deal with IE add-ons, like fiddler, IE Developer Toolbar and Internet Explorer Administration Kit. Should we maintain a list of them like in List of Internet Explorer extensions or index them in List of Internet Explorer Add-ins, on the footsteps of List of Microsoft Windows components, with the popular add-ons getting their own article. The third option is to give them their own sections in the list article. Your comments have been missed. :)

Anyways, hope you had a rocking time. --soum (0_o) 04:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Template

Hey, I think it would be better to leave the apps in the template for quick one-touch access. They do make nav easier. May be a separate windows components line? What do you think? --soum (0_o) 09:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that if we leave the door open to include arbitrary components, people will keep adding more or fiddling with which ones are already there. There's at least two dozen "important" components that could be listed, and it's better to avoid that altogether, just for the sake of keeping the template focused on mentioning all the different parts of Microsoft's business.

Perhaps the answer here is to build a navigation template for components of Windows, along the same lines as the Microsoft APIs one you put together earlier this month. I've been thinking about that for a year but I've never gotten around to doing it. :-) -/- Warren 14:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that can be a bit of a problem. But there are already too many templates! I was thinking of a super-template that will house all the templates in their collapsed forms, with some parameter deciding which template to open by default. How about that? --soum (0_o) 17:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd written you a lengthy reply to this but it doesn't appear to have been posted. Hmpfh. The short short version of my thoughts is this: We could create some more side navigation templates like {{Windows Vista}}, which I think has worked out really well as our first "experiment" with banding together a set of closely related Windows articles. There's a bunch of places where this would work out nicely, like with DirectX articles or Windows XP or Control Panel stuff or whatever. The key is to pick areas where the list of subjects is well-defined and completable; such a template would have 5-15 items. Then, we can cover the broad-scope stuff in bottom-of-article nav templates. I don't particularily like having more than one of those templates at the bottom of the page... it's a lot of clutter. The bottom of Mac OS X is particularily heinous. -/- Warren 03:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP

Hi Warrens,

I'm not familiar with all regulations on the English wikipedia (instead, I'm mostly active on wikipedia NL). I have reverted your edit, beause I remembered that I have read in the past both positive aspects and not-so-positive aspects of wordperfect (for what I mean, you might have a look at this version of the text I randomly choose a few moments ago). Imho, no hard feelings. :-)

Annabel 14:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm not related to Corel nor was I related to WordPerfect corporation

Open-Xchange

Hi Warrens,

I understand why the multiple links to the Open-Xchange site were removed; however since the project has many different aspects (commercial and community) it just makes it easier to navigate. Also, the partner listing were not to advertise for them or for us in any way. It was simply links to other companies associated with OX, as either resellers, developers, etc. Please let me know what references would be appropriate to get these messages across without violating any Wikipedia rules. It is not, and never has been, my intention to promote product sales with this definition. Thanks, Coti.b 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nav templates

Need a review :). Its not complete yet. The order of templates is to be decided. The spacing between them reduced, if not removed, and other kinks ironed. But it at least shows the intention. --soum (0_o) 12:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Actually you are quite late in this case. :P It was announced yesterday! Cya around. --soum (0_o) 18:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and one thing, in the lead of Mac OS X v10.5 it says it will support 64bit GUI apps, but from what I have read, support will not be limited to GUI apps only. Could you please take a look at that? Sorry for bombarding with requests. :D --soum (0_o) 18:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I wish you would assume good faith a little more than call me a blatant liar, I take it as a personal attack. It was a minor edit to add the tag, regardless. I notified the uploader of the Image I tagged and tagged the Image appropritely. Conforting me head on by first calling me a liar, ain't going to help your chances. — Moe ε 23:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you back off. How is disrepectful, I think you need to look up the meaning, because I'm not trying to decieve editors into anything, and your assuming bad faith that I am. I did everything as policy, guidelines and custom dictates. It does not matter what the hell I put in my edit summary when I correctly tag the damn thing. And what the hell are you talking about? I put orphan(ed), and no rationale in my last few edit summaries. The last one I put minor edit in was the one you already bitched at me about. — Moe ε 23:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no issue to begin with. Now I request you stop leaving me messages unless you got something else left to discuss. — Moe ε 00:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell did I just tell you about personal attacks? — Moe ε 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have an encyclopedia to build, Moe. Please feel free to use my talk page for issues solely relating to that goal. Thanks. -/- Warren 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how does insulting me in a heading, changing my edit, help benefit this encyclopedia? — Moe ε 00:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]