Talk:MSN Groups: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:01, 23 March 2007

Parts of this sound like advertisement ("another cool feature...", etc.). --Jim Henry | Talk 15:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change it to make it sound like an article. Sorry if I made a mess of the article. • Thorpe •

Seeking feedback on Google Groups article

Hello. I wrote an article about a related topic, Google Groups. As a new Wikipedia writer, I would appreciate any feedback on my article. Please help me by posting your feedback at the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Desk. If you wrote an article and are seeking feedback on it, please post your article at the Article Feedback Desk as well. If you could suggest better ways for me to seek feedback on my article, do leave a note at my talk page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are SmartGroups and GROU.PS notable enough?

I don't think SmartGroups and GROU.PS are notable enough to deserve links.

If you agree with me, please remove the links from the article.

(Where exactly are those links????)

I will not do so myself because I am self-banned from editing Microsoft-related articles. To find out more, please read my discussion at Internet Explorer's talk page (especially my concluding response on 24 April). Even though I have lost that dispute, I hope to learn from my mistakes, and would appreciate responses about the dispute on Internet Explorer's talk page.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how {{helpme}} can help you here, you just have to be patient and wait for someone familiar with the content to take a look.--Commander Keane 08:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I often ask similar questions on article talk pages. I think there should be a version of {{helpme}} for article talk pages, for such situations, so I can stick to using {{helpme}} for my user talk.

Do you agree that neither SmartGroups nor GROU.PS is notable? SmartGroups doesn't even have an article. The GROU.PS article has been listed on AFD. In fact, I just removed the SmartGroups link from the Yahoo! Groups article. I'm not removing it from MSN Groups because, as mentioned earlier, after a dispute, I was self-banned from editing Microsoft-related articles. If you can't help, perhaps you should read the dispute (link above). I hope to learn from the dispute even though I lost it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We use Grou.ps and enjoy it a lot, they claim to have 32000 users on their main page, which makes them quite popular, no? And their Alexa rating is over 100K, which is again, a quite respectable number.. As for SmartGroups, I've first heard about it here, but they have even greater rating at Alexa, over 25K. However, Alexa's credibility is arguable of course. I'd suggest to add them both to See Also section.

== 2/25/07 == Nuttybird2000 07:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today I added a History and a Future section to the MSN Groups page. I added Headers and cleaned the page up, corrected some minor errors and obsolete info, and got rid of the external links to old MSN stuff (such as Chat). Auntie Canuck of Web Design provided me with the History information, as she was an original member of MSN.

To the person who complained about the Popular Groups external links: I don't see the problem. Those are ex-MSN run groups designed to help users create and maintain groups. I have now changed the name of that section to Official MSN Groups.

I also added MSN's CoC & ToU as well as Contact Info to report abuse at MSN.

More to come.

Abuse Email

Whoever changed the abuse email back gave the wrong email abuse@groups.msn.com sends emails to a public group not owned by MSN i have added the correct email again.

Poor Information

Poor information on the future of MSN groups, is this needed? its just an opinion and why add your name after adding content it doesnt benifit the article what so ever?