Talk:Microsoft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Microsoft is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 11, 2006.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Microsoft (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Microsoft / Windows (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Companies (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / New Mexico / Washington / Seattle (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Video games (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Xbox task force.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)


Request edit on 19 June 2014[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]

Merger Proposal[edit]

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)

Charging customers for access to their email accounts.[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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[edit]

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)