User talk:Xpclient/Talk archive 1

Here's a change you made recently: your change

After reading the citation you added, I believe the quoted text is taken out of context - it refers to GDI applications running with DWM (i.e. Aero) as opposed to running Vista's UI without Aero - there is noticeable tearing in this mode - "Vista Basic" as it is not hardware accelerated, as previously stated in the same citation, as well as others.

If, for example, your machine is not capable of running Aero, you will experience a much worse desktop experience than running XP - as GDI+ is not hardware accelerated. I hope you consider this if you make any further revisions to this article.

Well then modify it to say "When Windows Aero is enabled" and when it isn't. :-) - xpclient ^Talk 18:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		...when you have cleaned up after my lack of any sensible grammatical sense :-P soum talk 20:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im aware of that, however older versions of Windows 2000 without Service Pack 4 cannot upgrade. Certain versions of Vista cannot be upgraded to if the client has Windows 2000 and wants to upgrade. Thank you for correcting my edits. As you can see I am not a Vista fan :) // A Raider Like Indiana 23:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted my edits back, however

Windows 2000 was superseded by Server 2003 and XP not Vista and Server 2008. Server 2003 and XP were superseded by Server 2008 and Vista. I fixed that issue.// A Raider Like Indiana 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Carbon applications, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Dougie WII (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of Carbon applications, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Carbon applications. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Dougie WII (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had to nominate a couple of articles created by you for deletion. I hope you realize there is nothing personal in this. :-) Btw, I responded to your chat messages. --soum ^talk 20:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess List of applications with iCalendar support also fits the bill as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy? :-) Btw, which criteria does it not meet? Is it "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" or "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" or both? xpclient (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are not failing any wikipedia policy per se. The problem is that these lists are just listing the articles. If thats the only use, a category is a better solution: you don't have to manually add the stuff, just create the articles and it gets listed. It also automatically deals with deletions and moves. Plus categories also automatically sorts them (alphabetically). Also, list articles are magnets for advertising. All these make categories a better solution. But if the list were to provide some extra organizational structure or extra informatiion (like List of Microsoft Windows components) then obviously its not a candidate to be replaced by categories. --soum ^talk 04:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You once told me that you do not like Image:Visual Studio Editions.svg. Is Image:Visual Studio Editions Compact.svg any better? --soum ^talk 08:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think much better and easier to understand for readers. :-)

You are receiving this automated message because your userpage appears in Category:Wikipedians interested in genetics.

Hi, Can you please share your opinion about this on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WorldWide_Telescope#Issues Mohit Agarwal (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice sig you have created for yourself. :) --soum ^talk 05:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-))))

Thank you for your intelligent input to and good work on the Win2k article. Sorry but I've asked another little question, hidden within this. Could you take a look? Morenoodles (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And I've just now posted another. I'll probably post more, too, but I won't clutter up this page with notices about them. Meanwhile, thank you for your patience. Morenoodles (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're called Security Support Providers, not Security Service Providers. Don't get confused with the term "Credential Security Service Provider"... they aren't the same thing. -/- Warren 19:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think both terms are used by Microsoft and others. Do a search for this, this and both again without the "site:microsoft.com" suffix :-). - xpclient ^Talk 19:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Some VCD records different languages in the two audio channels (say Cantonese in left channel and Mandarin in right channel), one can use that feature as a 'bilingual'. While in Windows XP, one can select left or right audio channel only while playing VCD with WMP. This function is gone in Vista.--218.102.95.31 (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I got it after Googling a bit. ;) You mean its gone because of the volume mixer/volume control changes or it's removed from the WMP UI? :-) - xpclient ^Talk 13:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In XP, there is no need to touch the mixer to use that function; all you need is right-click the playing screen in WMP and select audio and from a list of 'both channel', 'left channel', 'right channel' and 'mixed'. This sub-menu is gone in Vista--218.102.95.31 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean WMP 11 on XP too? Can you clarify where exactly is this feature? I can't find it. :)

Yes that suggestion on my talk is sound. Ultra! 18:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually an XP client? Ultra! 18:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happenned to Taskbar now? I stopped following that ridiculuous debate long back. Can you get me up to speed on the current status? --soum ^talk 08:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my preferred way of contacting. I think I threw it out, and the reason for even being on that wikipedia page was because I was just wondering what it was. If I still have it did you want to buy it or something?--WhereAmI (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I would have bought it. - xpclient ^Talk 03:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I still have it I will contact you. I will not be at the area that I left it at until late Saturday.--WhereAmI (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Btw, any of the vintage stuff will do. Btw, why is ur "Email this user" not enabled? :-) - xpclient ^Talk 07:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only got som old catalogues (paper) - not any MS Home CD-ROMs! Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't get a chance to try it, since I don't have access to Windows 2000 in a VM or real machine at present. But since the official resolution attempts to solve exactly the same problem (i.e. GDI+) as in that unofficial workaround, plus it was published by Microsoft themselves who had confirmed this is a problem in their products, I'd assume it will work.--Wengier (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not including a proper summary with my edit - however I'm not a vandal or someone testing out Wikipedia. That sentence read like someone was just complaining about a bug they'd encountered with Hotmail; as it was unsourced and completely unessential to the article I figured my removal wouldn't be problematic. GrahameS (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xpclient. You have been invited to join WikiProject Software, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Software-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Software}} to your userpage and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Announcement-u}} to the top of your talk page with the heading ==WikiProject Software Announcement==. If you know someone who might be interested, please pass this message onto others by pasting this code into their talk page {{Software invite|~~~~}} with the following heading == WikiProject Software ==. Thanks, Tyw7, Leading Innovations ‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) 11:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Vista Shutdown.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Features removed from Windows Vista. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Please do not include incendiary edit summaries. Thank you.Bettering the Wiki 15:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol ok. :) I didn't know edit summaries also count as WP content. Btw, did u or the template mean "incendiary"? - xpclient ^Talk 15:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did, and edited accordingly.Bettering the Wiki 00:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:ASPNETlogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on PowerCalc, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because PowerCalc is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting PowerCalc, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, but I don't see why keep emphasising that its the same application. Isn't it always the same apps that get grouped or combined? - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the section because:

1. Many of the items were simply based on people's observations of the snowclone (formulaic phrase) "It's looks like you're...". Even if it seems obvious, this sort of interpretation of fiction (that something is a reference to a particular other item) requires a secondary source to avoid original research.
2. Most (but not all) of the items were one-off references, tangential mentions for both Office Assistant and the work of fiction itself. WP:TRIVIA mentions tangential facts as items that can be removed altogether.

Remember that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good reason to keep something. I don't doubt that the Office Assistant has many parodies, and a "popular culture" prose section based on that could probably be sourced to some reliable sources. (I say "probably" because I've been both pleasantly surprised and frustratingly disappointed by what I have and have not been able to source in the past.) But that section would need to limit itself to examples specifically mentioned in reliable sources, and, in my experience at least, the majority of one-off references in popular culture don't have reliably sourced analysis. Again, this is not always the case, but the signal-to-noise ratio tends to be low when it comes time to source everything.

If you feel strongly enough about the section, I won't contest a revert. However, do keep in mind that, left unchecked, such lists tend to grow over time; a list of trivial mentions isn't a good encyclopedic example to set for for new contributors. (On a lighter note, here's xkcd's take on these lists: [1].) — TKD::{talk} 16:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated SSMS, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSMS. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your deleting various sections of the MHTML article, I am curious as to your motivations. None of the content contravened WP policies in any way, all was relevant to the article topic and all benefited the article. On your reasons given for each deletion:

• "Remove incorrect and uncited/falsely cited lines"

Lines were cited with links to downloads of the software being described. I am currently running the software in question and can attest to the accuracy of everything written. This does not constitute original research as the package being described can be cited as a primary source - this is discussed in various places, here is one example.

I just checked with Office 2007 - Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Publisher can handle MHTs, other apps can't. FrontPage, Expression Web, SPD can't. (SPD and Expression Web are pretty much the same app). I've changed the article to reflect this. :-) - xpclient ^Talk 06:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "hand editing by source is not WYSIWYG editing, that way every text editor doesn't become an MHTML editor"

Text editor's cannot edit MHTML as it is a compressed format - try opening a saved MHTML file in your own text editor for an example of this. An MHTML parser is necessary to edit this format as it must be parsed, converted to standard HTML for editing, and then re-converted to MHTML when saving. As for not being a WYSIWYG, please show me in the article where it states only WYSIWYG editors should be listed.

I'm not sure MHTML is a compressed format. Irrespective of that, Opera's "View source" command is behaving exactly like opening the MHT in Notepad/Wordpad. The text contents are viewable, the images being binary are base64 encoded. Opera doesn't seem to load the images and preserve the layout, I think that can be the criteria for what we include here: applications that can import them decently without destroying the formatting or importing text-only and those that can convert to and from HTML to MHTML and vice versa.- xpclient ^Talk 06:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "compressed" I was referring to the resources, but the main issue is that, compression or no, the entire file is obfuscated in a way. The various resources (CSS, JS files etc.) are obviously completely un-editable in a normal text editor, and the HTML source, while visible is not identical to the original source. You may think it is directly editable at first glance, but I welcome you to experiment in doing this to see the results you get. There are numerous "escape characters" and other anomalies. It is not akin to editing a standard HTML file at all. _ɹəəpıɔnı 17:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "also Office template is incorrect for this"

MS Office can be used for viewing, creating and editing MHTML documents. Why is it less worthy of inclusion that the other templates you did not see fit to delete? _ɹəəpıɔnı 14:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This I felt was debatable but I won't argue much, I've added it back. But Office includes support for a gazillion technlogies (HTML, PNG etc). - xpclient ^Talk 06:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Maybe it should be excluded. Or on the other hand, maybe it should be included in ALL of those pages... who knows. _ɹəəpıɔnı 17:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with that statement - a similar format change to the one found between 97/98 was also found between all versions prior to this (i.e. 1 - 2 - 3/95 - 97 - 98) - so there were 5 different formats and 4 different schisms. Additionally, in an age when most Office file formats remained compatible without the need to convert them (Word 97 - 2003, for example), Publisher's file formats remained incompatible between versions in the absence of the new version (which could downsave - no import filter for the older version though). It was only with Publisher 2002 that a forwards-compatible file format was adopted, 5 years after it was introduced in other Office apps. (Interestingly it was also Publisher 2002 where it finally started to look like the rest of Office, and adopted the Escher/Office Art 1.0 system used elsewhere since Office 97). Stannered (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm so it should be be mentioned in a History section specifiying only older versions, but since newer versions are forward compatible/file imports with only the new version-specific features not available, this doesn't apply to the last 3-4 releases, mention that 2002 onwards it's forward compatible (graceful degradation). And you could always downsave from a new version, ask the sender to downsave if you did not own the new version. Btw do you have Publisher 97? - xpclient ^Talk 10:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately I'm not sure if it's worthy of mention anyway... I do have Publisher 97 somewhere, but not installed. Stannered (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One suspected an M$ fanboy when the edit was summarily dismissed without so much as a token discussion on the subject. One also found "graceful degradation" amusing. Which is just good old M$ Marketing Speak for, (with apologies to Bogart, et al) "Type it in again, Sam!" :-) JimScott (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "graceful degredation" is Microsoft marketing speak for "it will open without having to do a 'save as the old version', but new functionality will not appear"; the same as was the case in Word 97 - 2003. Stannered (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An in regard to your comment on the edit you dismissed: "(Format only changed once totally betw 97 & 98. Of course new ver will have more features but you can save in a backward compatible format! Also the trial version can act as the viewer without expiring)", it isn't actually true, per se.
   If one is able to properly navigate the M$ KB database, one can determine that if one has Publisher 2002 thru 2007, one can backwards save only as far back as Publisher 2000. Then one can re-open the file in Publisher 2000 and backwards save the file as Publisher 97. Then one can re-open the file in Publisher 97 and backwards save the file as far back as Publisher 2.0. If one desires a Publisher 1.0 file, one is required to re-create it from scratch. One could be off a version here or there; the M$ KB system is a fairly twisted path (wouldn't want the commoners to figure out too much of how this works, eh?). The backwards save term is so aptly named since at each step the user loses more and more of the formatting and/or content of his original document or; should we say, it gracefully degrades.  :-) JimScott (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Publisher 2007, a user can downsave as (2007, 2003, 2002-mostly same format with graceful degradation :P), 2000 and 98. That's supporting 3 format versions and 5 Publisher versions for saving. Earlier versions, such as 98 do not allow downsaving to 97 or earlier. For opening/importing old documents, Publisher 2007 can open 2003, 2002, 2000, 98, 97 and even 95, according to this post. The 16-bit pre-Windows 95 2.0 is not supported. Also, no sane user or developer expects file formats more than 15 years old to be forever supported, esp when they have security vulnerabilities and obsolete dependencies. Moreover I couldn't find a citation saying the format changed around 1.0/2.0/95. Can you point me to some? And graceful degradation [2] is not marketing speak; when downsaving, it is done so a new version can save in an older format even if the format does not support storing some new features, yet when the document is opened in the old version of the app, it doesn't throw up and say it can't open the file at all or render it with weird layout. What do you expect, features to be backported features to the old version? And what is M$, do you mean MS, as in Microsoft? :-) - xpclient ^Talk 13:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that Publisher 2000 - 2007 can "backwards save" as far as Publisher 98. Publisher 2000 could only save back as far as Publisher 98, and Publisher 98 and earlier couldn't backwards save at all, if memory serves. Stannered (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Stannered - Thanks for sharing, I didn't find that info anywhere on the M$ web site.

@xpclient - Cannot speak to what Pub 2007 reads or saves since Office 2000 has met all of my simple needs so far but I checked and sure enough Stannered is correct, Pub 2000 will save back to the previous version, Pub 98. My bad. I thought your Jeff Bell archive link was very interesting ... did you read Julie T's message two posts later? Quite illuminating. Anyhow, yes, M$ is Microsoft. Even you have to admit the shoe fits on this one, eh.  :-)) as in LoL

   I guess what cheesed me in re to your "un-edit" was the cavalier way in which you dismissed the entire edit rather than merely correcting the part that was inaccurate or PC'ing the wording you objected to. I know POV is an issue (which I may have overstepped the bounds herein) but in this case perhaps your POV is showing? Are you sure that none of my addition was worthy of publication? Have a good week. JimScott (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JimScott, the only thing you accomplish by using phrases "M$" instead of "Microsoft", and writing stuff like "which means obviously they are not the same file format" into the encyclopedia, is to demonstrate to your fellow editors that you have no interest in working towards neutrality, a key Wikipedia goal. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to be a bit more professional. Warren -talk- 14:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Warren. The informalities of Talk aside, I apologize for offending your Microsoft POV. As for being professional, would you not agree that accuracy is as important as neutrality? The Microsoft Publisher article in its current state could (and did in this case) lead one to believe -- by omission of content to the contrary -- that there is one PUB format when, in fact, there are at least three or four; and they are not the same. In this instance my entire article edit (admittedly containing some POV BUT based on facts with references to Microsoft's own published information on the subject included) was dismissed out-of-hand and deleted without review or discussion. Is this being "neutral" or professional? Just curious. JimScott (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I restored the text I'd removed previously and changed the wording a bit... how does that look? Warren -talk- 02:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is clear now. :-) xpclient ^Talk 06:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the RC does truncte long filenames, than 75 characters isn't long enough, unless the Name column is too short. - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this entry you removed: All context menu items are not available when right clicking search results in the Start menu.. If you are running Windows 7 RTM, try right clicking a Start menu entry by going specifically from Start -> All Programs -> then right clicking on it. Now use Start search box to bring up the same item and try right clicking on it. "Run as admin" chiefly and some other context menu items are missing when right clicking on a search result. - xpclient ^Talk 21:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still running the RC, and I was not aware this had changed in RTM. How bizarre. :/ Garrett^Talk 22:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it behave differently on RC? Do you get "Run as admin" when right clicking a search result in the Start menu? - xpclient ^Talk 14:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed I do (I double-double-checked before removing the line, and I just checked it again now). The exception to this is the special type of shortcuts that don't have an editable path (e.g. Microsoft Mouse). There are some odd changes between builds, however (I don't currently have the RTM to refer to unfortunately). Garrett^Talk 20:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for telling me. --Josh (Mephiles602) 14:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Xpclient Thanks for your editions in ICO (file format). The article looks much better now. (It is still a bit weasel-wordy and a bit confusing in some parts, but I think we're going to make it even better.)

By the way, you have add comment about MSDN suggesting a 72 pixel icon dimension cap. I don't know what you mean by "Later OS" but at least in Windows XP with Service Pack 3, there really is such a cap. Here is a screenshot: http://bayimg.com/GAEKpAACl. The field "Size" does not accept a value above 72.

Fleet Command (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I only take issue with changing/dropping important words which changes the meaning (I've mentioned examples in the edit summary). Please avoid doing that. I'm trying to find a ref for the only "cn" in the article. About that 72 pixel cap, that cap is enforced/hard coded in the UI and that's what the "Icons in Win32" source on MSDN days but if you change the value in the registry directly for "Shell icon size" (32x32) and "Small shell icon size" (16x16), it has no such "cap" but I can verify this only on XP. Btw after making this reg change you need to log off and log back in. If you have access to older Windows versions in a virtual machine, please try doing these regedits on Windows 95, 98, 2000 etc. Also I don't see any more weasel words. And I also found a great ext link. - xpclient ^Talk 04:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, xpclient, I'm afraid I'm going to do them again, since some of your edits were not encyclopedic or were problematic. A summary is included below, but before going to that, I'd like to make it clear that I yet have no doubt of your good intention. (We have worked on one or two articles together.) We are bound to come to a few bumps and bruises but I'm sure we can eventually do it.:

• You write "CUR file" with "the" article, as if it is a defined matter in a separate article. No, it is not. ".cur" redirects to this article and "CUR file" must also be defined. This article is not just about icons, but also about cursors too.

Fleet Command (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about this. - xpclient ^Talk 04:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You use weasel words, which promotes a subject without providing evidence and gives an illusion of notability. For example, you have written:

.ICO files, .CUR files and icon library files can be edited or exported with a number of graphics programs and specialized free and commercial icon editors.

This sentence adds no new information to the article but attempts to give its subject an illusion of importance without providing any evidence. Please don't use weasel words. "Single general line on icon editors is not weasel" is not a good excuse. WP:WEASEL says that it is weasel word.

Fleet Command (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence tells the reader that graphics editors can also edit icons and specialized icon editors also exist. Readers can look up the graphics program article or a search engine to get their list. Do you see the Text file article laden with the names of specific text editors? There is no limit to listing specific icon editors and nearly every graphics program can open ICO files. I'd ask why are you promoting Paint.NET? It is not discretely designed for editing icons, nor established as an icon editor. Can you point out which exact words make this a weasel worded statement? Maybe "a number of" but that can be eliminated. How about this?

.ICO files, .CUR files and icon library files can be edited or exported with graphics programs and specialized free and commercial icon editors.

I don't see ANY weasel words in this line nor is this statement uninformative, ambiguous or vague. - xpclient ^Talk 04:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is weasel wording. The reader, no only can assume this much, but also has the right to inquire "which commercial?" and "which free graphical software?" Without any answer to these questions, this sentence is only saying "This article important because ICO files have made a whole market of ICO editors!"

The better alternative to this sentence however, is already present in the article: The list page at the bottom, in See Also section.

Oh, and about Paint.NET, it's gone: I've double checked the manual of style and discovered that linking to the plugin also needs the plugin to be notable. Anyway, during the merger, Paint.NET and another one are gone. Only IrfanView and GIMP remained, since their articles specifically assert their notability.

Fleet Command (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You have used a bogus source for one of your statements! This is by far the most grievous error. Your statement reads:

“

Before this was registered, image/x-icon was the most common MIME type used in the industry since it complied with the rules of using x- for unregistered tokens. Many other erroneous MIME types are also still used inconsistently, including image/ico, image/icon, text/ico, and application/ico. Web servers which do not come configured with a MIME type setting for .ICO files, send their default MIME type, which might be text/html or text/plain.

”

While your source is:

“

IANA MIME type assignments, image/vnd.microsoft.icon

”

I checked this source and it says nothing about "image/x-icon", nor anything about "x-" being a prefix for unregistered token, nor anything about a lot of erroneous types being used besides what it introduces, nor anything about web servers default MIME type configuration. Come on, xpclient, this is called forgery! Please, please, for your own sake, if not for the Wikipedia's, don't do it.

Fleet Command (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I did this edit, I reinstated a part of the article you had eaten up and generalized into a statement which does not separate the MIME types web servers pass. I guess the source remained at the end (unintentionally) but instead of assuming good faith, you are accusing me of deliberate forgery? - xpclient ^Talk 04:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my God, of course not! I absolutely assumed good faith! That's why I haven't undone it yet. I'm not accusing! I'm just informing and warning! I know you; I know that you are a PLUS Wikipedian.

I'm sorry if plain text is not a good medium of transferring senses. I know it was an unintentional mistake, but please know that it is a dangerous unintentional mistake.

Anyways, please fix this, okay? You don't want a certain Administrator (noli nomen vocare) come crashing down on you, do you?

Fleet Command (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your information the ATP rankings that i posted were the ranking that the website orginally posted, they were actually the one who made a mistake on the rankings, that was their original post, it didn't look that suspiscious compared tot he mistake that they made on the doubles rankings were they screwed it up badly and the when category is really stupid which means you are not a tennis supporter to not know that the changes are from week-to-week that was like started many years ago. (Dencod16) 23:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read Wikipedia guidelies for editing. Btw I never said I didn't know when the "Move" column is from. :-) Wikipedia articles should clarify that. Wikipedia guidelines do not allow assumption. There's no "everyone knows that so let it be" case. - xpclient ^Talk 04:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your drive to improve the article, however you last edits like this and this only added trivial or even grossly misinterpreted information. Specifically,

1. DXGI is an application-level API and is part of DirectX (Direct3D) family; even though a WDDM driver essentially implements many parts of the DXGI API, the latter is not a device driver interface like WDDM
2. As a consequence, Direct3D 11 is enabled by WDDM 1.1 (or what Microsoft calls "Direct3D11 support in Windows Vista Display Driver Model" in the DDK), not DXGI 1.1 - you can't run Direct3D11 without supporting WDDM drivers, though DXGI 1.1 will be perfectly present but will fail any request to open a D3D11 device
3. There is no new "driver" for D3D10 feature level 9, the runtime directly calls the existing Direct3D 9 DDI implemented in every WDDM driver (and does resource format conversion where necessary)
4. WARP is not really related of WDDM, it's rather a part of Direct3D 11 runtime; similarily, not every new DDI or API in the Windows Graphics part of Vista platform update is related to WDDM and deserves a mention here
5. Similarilym detailed information on the architecture of Display Window Manager belongs to that specific article and is not relevant to WDDM, as DWM is just another graphics application for the WDDM driver

Please look through relevant MSDN Library sections on Windows Device Driver Kit and Windows Graphics APIs before making broad conclusion based on simply-worded guidelines for support personnel. --83.167.100.36 (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I reply to you late (I'm offline for a few months).

I removed tons of game publishers and developers in Casual game because I think they're not notable publishers (original search by myself).

Ʈuaηèsε™ ^{(literally俊的)} 10:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This cited source does not agree with you. It explicitly states that DVD-RAM support is new to IMAPI version 2. Fleet Command (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will find several sources claiming otherwise from here - xpclient ^Talk 12:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Is that a web address or a wikilink? Fleet Command (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant this link. Anyway, although Windows XP supports DVD-RAM, it doesn't interact with them using IMAPI. You see FAT32 DVD-RAMs are accessed through Live File System, which is not a specialty of IMAPI. IMAPI v2, however, supports burning to DVD-RAM through UDFS. Fleet Command (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok I see XP doesn't use IMAPI at all when writing to DVD-RAM. Thanks for clearing that up. Btw I see no mention of "Live File System" on XP. - xpclient ^Talk 13:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right because the term is newly coined. Fleet Command (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand you. What are you exactly talking about? Is it related to my recent edit to Office 2010 article? Fleet Command (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am talking about the edit where you converted the removed features section to bullet-point style. The Starter edition section (which you didn't edit I know) is according to me, appropriate for bullet point style as there are too many features to list in a single line or paragraph (large grey text matter). But there aren't enough removed features in Office 2010 apps to justify bulleted point style for each application. :-) - xpclient ^Talk 12:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... No problem. I'll go ahead and convert it prose. Actually, I was considering it. Fleet Command (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried writing the list in form of prose and I can't make it satisfactory; at least to myself. I'm having a second opinion and I think the current form is much better than prose. If you still disagree with me, then we need a third opinion; you know, propose this matter in talk page and let us get feedback. Fleet Command (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]