Contents
- 1 Welcome, Codename Lisa!
- 2 Please improve section Microsoft_product_divisions#Applications_and_Services
- 3 Windows 10 Mobile
- 4 Office 2010
- 5 Why removing entries of helpful tools in "List of installation software"...?
- 6 On the Subject of Creative Commons Criticism
- 7 Re: Paul Thurrott
- 8 Infobox software / official website
- 9 Could you help to remove biased and harmful text from the Cdrtools page?
Welcome, Codename Lisa!
Hello, Codename Lisa, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Mr. Stradivarius, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Fun stuff...
{{helpme}}
here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Please improve section Microsoft_product_divisions#Applications_and_Services
Please improve section
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_product_divisions#Applications_and_Services
All the software listed here, are they really business divisions.
Also is every current software listed in each title.
Also is all the softwares of Microsoft covered.
Any help would be appreciated brother
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.231.215 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Windows 10 Mobile
Thank you for the information. I am very well aware of the fact that Windows 10 Mobile is not mine. All I was doing is to upload a clear screenshot of the windows 10 mobile. Possibly while uploading the image I failed to understand the license stuff and selected license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmekul (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Office 2010
I understand that you need a source, but how do you source your own experiences? You can't. How do you source assumptions? You can't.
Why WOULDN'T Office 2010 work on anything after Windows 7? If Office 95 works perfectly in Windows 10, why can't Office 2010?
Billybobjoe321 (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) That's right, you can't source your own experiences or assumptions. And that's why WP content cannot be based on editors' own experiences or assumptions. The table of "System requirements" for Office 2010 is sourced to Microsoft's product specs. Even if Office 2010 does, in our experience or that of people we know, seem to run on a later OS, even if we can't think of a reason why it shouldn't, we can't publish that without a reliable source. (I will say again: Editors' own experiences, assumptions, and conclusions are not, repeat not, usable as sources here.)
- And even if we had a RS for Office 2010 running on Windows 10, it couldn't go in the "System requirements" table. That table reflects what Microsoft says about the product, nothing more.
- If you want to publish your own experiences, assumptions, conclusions, etc., start a blog or find one that will publish your articles. WP isn't it. Jeh (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Why removing entries of helpful tools in "List of installation software"...?
There have been some nice entries for helpful, free installation tools in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_installation_software&oldid=685937196
Why do you marked them as "spam"? Just because they have no own wiki page? So why haven't you removed "Visual Installer" then? It just has a blank page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Installer And why haven't you removed Orca as well since it does not have an own page?
Sorry but the way you maintain this page is inconsistent... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overlord010 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Overlord010: (by talk page stalker) Wikipedia is not a directory of everything; but it can index its own contents. I am looking at Visual Installer and it is not a blank page; it is a full article. The link to Orca also has more contents than the link to Wise (software). Fleet Command (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
On the Subject of Creative Commons Criticism
Hi. On the topic of my edit: The questions and concerned raised were valid. The criticism retread parts in the reception area. While perhaps we could integrate a couple of the legitimate sources in the reception area, I do feel that re-instating the criticism section feels a little ridiculous. It truly does read as though it were edited by someone angered about the new pricing model and conflicts with the tone of the article. I am going to remove the section once again, but will incorporate elements into section. Also: While I regret that I once previously vandalized a page when I was a kid, I feel as though I ought to defend my current edit as I feel as though it is valid, and I do not feel as though I was hyperbolic in my assessment of said section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.112.226 (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Re: Paul Thurrott
So let me get this straight, you're basically asserting that he's not an "established expert" in the field, cited by reliable sources in the past, which thus satisfies the exception of WP:SPS? ViperSnake151 Talk 16:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, ViperSnake151 Long time...!
- First, let me remind you what happens when you fall for the journals that have beautiful websites and journalists that are very good at pretending: [1] BGR.com literally fed us a forged story and never winced.
- Paul is an expert in the field of tabloid journalism, i.e. looking us in the eye, saying Steve Ballmer is the best CEO Microsoft has ever had, smiling and acting as if he is an expert in the field of computing with a track record of infallibility! Just like BGR.
- In the field of computing, no, he is definitely not an expert. Don Box is an expert. Richard Stallman is an expert. Mark Russinovich is an expert. But Paul Thurrott is nothing. He parrots what Mary Jo Foley finds out and adds his own personal opinion to it.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Interesting, Codename Lisa. I saw the name of Don Box somewhere on the Internet minutes ago. Did you happen to write it? Fleet Command (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Hello, FleetCommand. Are you sure you didn't see the name of Richard Stallman minutes ago on the Internet?
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
-
Infobox software / official website
I wondered if you might be able to help solve this problem or advise me on what's causing it. At Mail (Apple), an editor on the talk page has pointed out that in the article's second infobox — the one dedicated to "Mail (iOS)" — the blank website field is getting auto-populated with a link to the Russian-language website for OS X Mail (www.apple.com/ru/macosx/whats-new/mail.html) — the wrong software as well as the wrong language.
Apple has no official webpage specifically dedicated to iOS Mail (unlike OS X Mail), so we don't want ANY website to appear in the "Mail (iOS)" infobox. But the "Infobox software" template doesn't seem to give us that option: leaving the "website" field blank seems to tell "Infobox software" to grab the website URL from wikidata, but I think maybe it's grabbing the wikidata based on the article title (Mail (Apple)) rather than the name of the infobox (Mail (iOS)). And maybe in this case, that's leading to wikidata for the wrong software, which for some reason also happens to have a Russian-language URL listed for the official website. That's just a guess, though...
I apologize for my possibly jumbled explanation of the problem; I'm totally new to the world of wikidata and I may be misunderstanding what's happening. If you have time, I'd really appreciate any insights or fixes you might be able to offer. I went looking through the talk pages and documentation for the "Infobox software" and "Official website" templates, but I remain stumped on how to proceed. Regards, AtticusX (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @AtticusX: Greetings, thank you for your concern over this display. per template:infobox software, if you will set it to website = hide , that will omit display of this parameter regardless of what wikidata says about it. Correcting wikidata's data should probably be done but is beyond my ken. Jeh (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Jeh: Thanks for the explanation. I'd missed the documentation of the "hide" parameter at template:infobox software. I've made the fix to the infobox at Mail (Apple). Cheers, AtticusX (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- And I figured out how to update/correct the official URL for OS X Mail at www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q212211. Huzzah! AtticusX (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Could you help to remove biased and harmful text from the Cdrtools page?
Hi, User Chire recently started again his attacks against the Cdrtools page by adding this biased text: [2].
I reverted this and replaced his text by a neutral explanation of the background but this was reverted again to the biased text. Could you help me with that problem? Schily (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi.
- I don't know anything about this subject. Sorry.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)