User talk:Digita

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

IE[edit]

Hi. Please do not re-add information to the Internet Explorer 7 page against consensus. If you feel a dedicated article is necessary to disseminate more information than is possible within the confines of the Internet Explorer article, please talk it out on the talk page for the IE article and ask for people's opinion on the subject. Once many people feel its necessary, content can be forked. Cheers. --soumসৌমোyasch 03:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of the previous discussion on the IE page. However, the forked content was merged from more pages then just IE page, and includes new content created for the IE page. The issue now is if you (or others) want to do a merge to IE. Old discussion about forking the IE page does not relate to new material created for a dedicated IE7 page.Digita 04:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I cannot find the discussion you are talking about, nor a pre-existing vote or consensus about merging the IE7 page anywhere. Digita 04:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Old discussion still applies to newer versions of an article if it has not changed much. And I wasnt talking about any discussion, I was referring to a dispute. Sorry, if my wordings left room for misinterpretation. I should have said "Please do not revert the redirection", as your additions were once reverted and thus making it disputed. Its very essential to sort out disputes through mutual dialogues and not turn it into a revert war. Cheers. --soumসৌমোyasch 16:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Since the discussion about forking the IE article does not seem to be going anywhere, I would suggest you that you directly go for voting. Create a section on the IE talk page explaining what you want and why and ask for people to vote. If the consensus is to fork, go ahead and create the article. Community consensus is a good way to go in such situations.--soumসৌমোyasch 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is still making progress on that page, and I would prefer to keep the discussion in one place please. Thanks Digita 04:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
No one is stopping you from keeping the discussion in one place. You can routinely copy the discussion there. --soumসৌমোyasch 17:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Template[edit]

You'll be forgiven for being new at this, but you really need to stop adding the {{Microsoft}} and {{Windows Vista}} templates to articles where it isn't appropriate. Navigation and article series templates are intended -only- for the articles which are linked in the template itself. This means that {{Microsoft}} does not belong on WinFS. I'm going to revert all your changes. Please don't make more work for other editors by continuing with this. -/- Warren 18:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I disagree about the the MS template, but see your point about your new Vista template. BTW, are you ok with the IE intro now? Digita 18:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
We have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000 articles covering Microsoft topics. I'm not particularily concerned that you disagree with how it's used; it's a pretty standard Wikipedia convention to do things this way, and we ought to stick with it. That's why I'm telling you to stop. We can discuss Internet Explorer on its talk page. -/- Warren 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well if its a convention, thats different. I was just doing what was done by others on a number of pages, you might want to tell them too if you get the chance. Digita 18:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

IE7 discussion[edit]

Hey, I moved your comments as is down to clean up my rationale (if you say "please don't move my comments", I can also say "please dont clutter up my reasoning"). I did not edit anything. I just did it to get it in line with the protocol followed during voting. The original posters' rationale is not commented upon, in-place. I am going back to the changed layout. It contains everything you said, without any change. Hope you don't mind. :) --soumসৌমোyasch 17:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as long as my comments remain intact and I agree it needs to be a neater format. I did not mean to accuse of editing the actualy comments, just moving them (sorry). I will cross out my comments and say they were moved to the new section, so it clear what happened. Digita 17:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, dont cross out. I am moving it properly. And will keep a note saying what happened. Crossing out will mess it up as well. --soumসৌমোyasch 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up that place. Please make sure I havent inaverdently missed any of your comments (there was a lot of edit conflicts which might have jumbled things up, I am sorry if any such thing happened) --soumসৌমোyasch 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I think all my comments are there now. Even though we may disagree about the IE page, we handled this well. To borrow your phrase, cheers. Digita 17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 :) I also moved your per-rationale move notice into the generalized notice.
Sure, we might have differences regarding edits but that is no a reason to be rude or incivil with others, is it? o_0. Cheers. :) --soumসৌমোyasch 17:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I am signing off now. See you tomorrow. Have a good day or night wherever you are. :) --soumসৌমোyasch 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Goodnight, and cheers to you also.Digita 18:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

template ideas[edit]

Feel like trying your hand at making a new template or two? I know you're interested in getting some navigation templates into the Microsoft articles, but we'd need some new ones. All of the Windows XP articles (see Category:Windows XP for a reasonably complete list) could be linked together with a template. Another area which could be interesting to do is to cover all the applications and games included with modern versions of Windows (Notepad, Paint, Calculator, that sort of thing). List of Microsoft Windows components could be a useful reference there. What do you think? -/- Warren 06:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it sounds like a great idea! If we can get good templates on these articles it will help people explore them, and the idea for one that links groupings of software (like the notepad, etc.) could work out well. It will take some time I think to find the best approach, but I think your one for windows was a good start. Maybe one similar to that (or like perhaps a footer version of it) but more focused on specific area could work. Digita 18:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Too much IE[edit]

The latest version of IE that can run on a version of Windows isn't very relevant to the Windows version. It's not really anymore relevant than the latest version of Windows Media Player, or Office, or Mozilla Firefox, or any other Windows program for that version of Windows...It's too much information. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It was based on the importance of shell integration and some shell extensions in some windows versions- this seemed to make it more important. However, I can see your point as direct x for instance has also been important. Take a moment to reconsider IE/Win integration, and if you still think its not right just revert. (or let me know here and I can) Digita (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy and paste edits[edit]

If you are copying content from one article to another, please indicate which articles the content came from in the edit summary. One of the ideas of having an edit history on every article is we can identify who created each piece of content. Edit summaries like "ie3 started" aren't sufficient. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Normally I do alistair, and I admire your work on IE Mac. In the case of the IE Mac summaries there were to many pages involved to fit in the edit summary box, not to mention the new things that were added or changed. However, I will add in a hidden comment noting where the initial version originated to further clarify that it started out as slightly modified copy of that article section. Digita (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

IE9[edit]

Please Comment: Talk:Internet Explorer#IE9 --soum talk 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is long overdue[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For amazing work on Internet Explorer articles!! Your commitment to
writing neutral, well-sourced articles sets a good example for us all.
-/- Warren 19:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)



Oh wow, thank you! Digita (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks in Internet Explorer shell[edit]

Hi. I am at a loss to understand why you keep re-adding redlinks (i.e. examples which don't have articles) to the list of examples in the Internet Explorer shell article.

It must be clear to an experienced Wikipedia editor that any "List of X", "Comparison of X", or "Examples of X" article or section in Wikipedia is not a comparison of all X's, but a comparison of notable X's, where 'notable' is defined as 'has a Wikipedia article and so fulfils WP:N'. I invite you to peruse, for example, Comparison of Linux distributions, Comparison of video codecs, Comparison of text editors, etc., or list articles such as List of people born at sea, List of people who died young, or List of atheists. All these cases, and many thousands more Wikipedia lists and comparisons with open inclusion criteria, share one thing in common: They are not intended to be exaustive databases of all such items as fulfil the criteria. There are many hundreds of Linux distributions which are not included in Comparison of Linux distributions; and many billions of people who died young who aren't included in List of people who died young. Why? Because they are not notable.

You may well ask "Who is to say that the rest of the internet explorer shells are not notable just because no one ventured to make an article for them (yet)"? But that misses the point, which is that the guideline for inclusion is, for both articles and comparisons, and I quote, "if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Now, if an internet explorer shell has an article, then all is well: the references and sources that prove notability for inclusion will be included in the article (if there are none in an article at the moment, then either some should be added, or, if there are none to add, the topic should be AfD'd). If it does not have an article, then there is nothing to establish notability or even make an assertion of notability, and that example should be deleted.

So just adding a reference after an example to show that it fulfils the criteria for inclusion in the list is not sufficient to show that it should be in the list, any more than a reference that demonstrates that my uncle Bob died young would suffice as criteria for inclusion in List of people who died young.

You see the point? -- simxp (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Its OK to have stuff on a list that doesn't have its own page, provided it meets the guidelines for that page. Digita (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't wish to come across as confrontational, but did you actually read any of my comment? -- simxp (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Line break code[edit]

Hi Digita,

I've noticed that you've been adding </br> to various pages. This is confusing and malformed XHTML; please use <br/> instead when you need to insert a link break. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will update the pages with this correction. Digita (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)