Talk:Blue Screen of Death

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured article candidateBlue Screen of Death is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted


Some security companies send viruses immatating BSOD (Blue Screen of Death) to trick you into buying the product. If this seems to be happening, please contact a professional for help. It may show a BSOD screen multiple times and alert you to install the anti-virus software.

BSOD colors[edit] The source on how the color of the BSOD is defined and how to change it in 3.1/95/98

Changing the BSOD in Windows 8/8.1/10 is a bit more complicated:

Colgatepony234 (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Colgatepony234
Both of these sources are problematic, which is why you should stick to reliable sources only. The source is clearly mistaking an ordinary text screen message for BSOD. For one thing, Windows 3.1 does not have a BSOD. For another, the source says:

I usually get a BSOD right out of the blue at random intervals at least once a week. (Same error, and oddly it's usually non-fatal.)

If it is not fatal, then it is not a BSOD.
In another place it says:

Under Windows 3.1, just hit ctrl-alt-del.

Under Windows 95, just wait a while. :) If you are in a hurry you can bring up a full screen text message by writing a file to a floppy disk and ejecting the disk while it is in the middle of writing. This will result in an "insert disk" error message.

Again, Windows 3.1's CTRL+ALT+DEL screen is not a BSOD. (See Blue Screen of Death § Incorrect attribution) Nor is Windows 95's "insert disk" error message that can simply be dismissed. We have a full section in the article listing all the BSODs of Windows 95 and "insert disk" is not one of them.
The person blog on WordPress is still better, as it is mistaking something for something else. However, it fails to verify your original claim that "In later Windows versions, changing the color of the BSOD would require modifying the registry". Our friend Colin from Shanghai is clearly hacking and modding Windows kernel the way Mark Russinovich did. When you wrote "in Windows 8 and higher, it is possible to not only change the color of the BSOD, but also the emoticon" you were implying that this is a customization feature of Windows 8 while it is not.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Add Windows 10?[edit]

As the comment suggests, the Windows 10 BSoD is slightly different. Should we include the difference between the Windows 10 and 8.1 BSoD? UpsandDowns1234 (Talk to me) (My Contribs) 22:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Misinterpreted sources[edit]

Codename Lisa has reverted my trimming of the subsection on news outlets misattributing the screen to Steve Ballmer, while accusing me of "censorship". They later reverted almost all my edits to the article. Out of curiosity, I decided to check out who added this section in the first place; it turns out it was the same user. I can imagine why they would feel so personally about it, but there is no need for such strong language as "censorship"; please assume good faith. It is simply a matter of giving the issue its due weight. After all, this is an article about an error screen, not about journalists misinterpreting sources they cite. And yet, out of 24 references currently in the article, half are dedicated to covering this little controversy. While I may agree the incident does seem to deserve some kind of mention, this looks like a sign of this article being disproportionately focused on it. It is hardly "censorship" to address that: WP:NOTCENSORED does not say "no content can ever be removed from Wikipedia".

In reverting my edits, Codename Lisa reinstated a section called "Similar screens" with comparisons to other systems. Now, I think this is not a very good place for such information: there is a navbox of similar screens at the bottom, and there is even a whole article Fatal system error which could cover this topic. Moreover, that section tended to attract all sorts of unsourced trivia. It also contained this sentence:

Windows 98 and early builds of Windows Vista displayed the red screen from a boot loader error raised by ACPI.[1][2][3]


  1. ^ "Advanced Configuration and Power Interface Errors on Red Screen". Support (1.3 ed.). Microsoft. 10 August 2007. Retrieved 19 July 2014. 
  2. ^ Best, Jo (11 May 2005). "Red screen of death?". CNET. CBS Interactive. Retrieved 9 September 2013. 
  3. ^ Farrell, Nick (3 June 2005). "Microsoft sees red over blue screen of death". The Inquirer. Incisive Media. Retrieved 9 September 2013. 

The sources cited do not support the claim made. The Microsoft page is a dead link; an archived version talks about Windows 98, but it is not clear that it is the same kind of error as the one this article talks about. The other two news articles report on a blog post by Michael Kaplan about Longhorn's boot loader (though neither news article mentions boot loaders itself). So we have something about a red ACPI error screen in Windows 98, and a red boot loader error screen in Windows Vista, and the two have nothing to do with each other. Even without examining the sources, this claim should have been suspicious: boot loaders do not generally concern themselves with ACPI, and Windows 98 is a completely separate codebase from Windows Vista.

I think it serves this project no good if it indulges in the very same kind of incompetence of which it is accusing others (and on the very same page no less). If nothing else, it makes the between-the-lines sniggering to the effect of "ha ha ha, you stupid journalists got it wrong" rather hypocritical.

Unless someone else objects, I am going to reinstate my edits. I hope I shall not be accused of "censorship" this time. —Keφr 20:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello.
I'll get straight to the point:
  1. "please assume good faith": Censorship is always done in good faith. When it is done in bad faith, it called "vandalism"!
  2. "I can imagine why they would feel so personally about it": Actually, I can argue that it is you who feel personally about it, because you accompanied your edit with an unprovoked personal attack ("cut down silly passive-aggressive gloating over a fairly minor press incident") and have linked the "feel so personally" part to WP:OWN. I on the other hand, spent three revisions and a lot of times so that my revert is a partial revert.
  3. "It is simply a matter of giving the issue its due weight.: Correct. Only I believe it is I who gave it the due weight and you denied it the due weight. When 11 source, to which many of us Wikipedians swear, commit such a mistake, the amount of coverage that I gave it, is the proper amount. The thing that is absent from your version, however, is the neutral point of view. You did not represent fairly and proportionately the point of view of both sources. You simply censored the point of viewed of those eleven source, like it does not matter.
  4. "The sources cited do not support the claim made. [Blah blah]": There is enough truth in the given sources that the correct course of action would be rewording, not deletion. I have done so: Revision 785999653.
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kephir: What you did to the article is this. (And CL didn't revert it all; she kept this.) You have done a lot of bad things in it:
  • Your alleged attempt to adjust the due weight of the "Incorrect attribution" section is this:

    The error message's format is similar to that of non-fatal popup messages produced by the virtual machine manager of Windows 3.x. This visual resemblance has caused several media outlets to misreport a blog post by Raymond Chen as saying that the Blue Screen of Death message was written by Steve Ballmer; what the post had actually attributed to Ballmer was a different kind of blue-screen message.

    "This visual resemblance has caused" is original research; you can't know that. "several media outlets" is weasel word and unreferenced. More importantly, you post doesn't rule out that Steve Ballmer didn't do it.
  • You deleted everything in "Similar screens" section without explanation. (Content removal without citing a policy in support is vandalism.) You disguised it as "move info on other colours elsewhere".
  • You have removed two links from the "See also" section without explanation.
  • You have added three links to the "See also" section that, according to WP:SEEALSO, mustn't be there. It is not a "See again" section.
"Unless someone else objects, I am going to reinstate my edits. I hope I shall not be accused of "censorship" this time." Oh, I assure you, you will not be accused of censorship of if you do that. You will be accused of edit warring and being a dick. You are threatening to edit war already. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)