Required Your Attention
Hi. I recently saw you have posted an image in Wikimedia Commons regarding Mozilla Firefox i.e, File:Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.png, anyways i saw there that you have reverted the image uploaded by an user by the name Nclm tagging as "the first version is assumed free because it is in the source code, like the previous logo was when it was declared free".
Your sentence might be true, but does this apply to the image which was uploaded by another user named TheMostAmazingTechnik replacing my uploaded image ? i.e, File:IOS 7 Logo.png, if yes, you are requested to make changes to it.
Thanks.10:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tmsnc, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Solaris, Mandrake and Ubuntu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Open source lab
I could use a little help. Would you help me move the page Open Source Lab to Open Source Lab (OSU) the proper way to talk all the history and talk pages - if I agree to write up at least a short introduction for the others that I had found? If so is the best way to do that - move first then create the other pages or do you need me to create some of them first? Thanks - Stockwellnow (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to this article, but by longstanding consensus operating systems that use the Linux kernel are called "Linux" on Wikipedia, as per WP:COMMONNAME. "GNU/Linux" is considered a minority POV term used by the FSF and its supporters. On Wikipedia the term is only used to describe distros when the distro itself is called "GNU/Linux" and then only when referring to the distro itself. If you want to change this consensus then the way to go about is not by trying to insert the term GNU/Linux into articles on distributions, such as on List of Linux distributions endorsed by the Free Software Foundation. You should read Talk:Linux including all the archives of that page, to get the history of the problem as well as Talk:Linux/Name as this is where past consensuses have been formed. You will also want to read GNU/Linux naming controversy and its talk page as background as well. When you have the history of the consensus read then you can present your case at Talk:Linux to try to convince the other editors that all references "Linux" other than to the kernel itself in Wikipedia should be changed to "GNU/Linux". Be advised that this has been brought up dozens of times there, including recently and has always been soundly and conclusively opposed. - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
ithank you but, what i wrote was just general.
It was not a lot of info to make that section to be for a specific file type. It was just general info about a file that can have errors. There was no need to delete the whole subject since there other file types that can have errors. A good edit could be one in which you can list the file types that can have errors, since that way that section wont be off topic or something like that. Doorknob747 01:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs)
- @Doorknob747: Do you have a source that says Windows (? The section said "Microsoft") moves ZIP differently from other file types? That makes no sense to me. The only difference today should be that a piece of corrupted text file can make sense to most humans, while even an uncorrupted ZIP file would make little sense to most humans, and maybe some programs wouldn't try to read it without asking the user first. --AVRS (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
DRM and obsolescence
I added a note to the talk page; in most cases it doesn't really qualify since unless a company's business plan includes going broke, there isn't any real ability to make money from loss of the entire service. I suppose if there were some example equivalent to, say Google totally shutting down their app store and then opening a new app store where no previous purchases were honoured, that would count, but it'd be suicide in terms of consumer relations. I don't recall anyone ever actually trying to pull a stunt like that.
A more valid example, perhaps, would be software licenses and download codes; if the manufacturer stops offering the product for download, you have to purchase the new version of the product or do without; this is most likely to be a viable source of revenue with utility software like word processors or rendering software. You could also bring up central server-based videogames, especially on consoles; in theory a publisher could shut down the servers for one of their old games just as they release a new one, though there would be no guarantee this would result in players migrating. That's probably been tried before, though I can't think of an example offhand. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)