From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
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.


I found a missing citation for the friendship of the two.

Ldrrp1 (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Microsoft/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JerrySa1 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Expect comments by tomorrow.JerrySa1 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to fail this nomination, shows that this article is a carbon copy in some areas to one of the sources, most of the history section, the entirety of the logo section, and more. A part of the Businesses section copies of another source, seen here, Speaking of the business section, it is tagged as outdated, which I see as still valid.. JerrySa1 (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This page can be improved once this page meets copyright requirements and the business section is updated.JerrySa1 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@JerrySa1: I've never tried to interpret the results of an Earwig report, but I was surprised by your copyvio finding and had a look. Are you referring to Earwig's "99.0% confidence match with"? That's a 2014 student piece that is clearly a copy of the Wikipedia article; the history section of the Wikipedia article has been stable since before 2014, and the student work cites the Wikipedia article as one of its sources. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't notice the fact Wikipedia was cited. There's still the issue of the second area though. That's still not enough for quickfail, so this needs an actual review.JerrySa1 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@JerrySa1: I think ActiveBrains also copied from Wikipedia. If the section had been copied from ActiveBrains, the article history at Wikipedia would show the section being created in only one or two edits by the editor violating the copyright. In fact the history shows that the section has been worked on by many editors over several years. The phrase "As of December 2009" is also strong evidence, I think, as it's hard to see how a writer at ActiveBrains would use that wording if it were not copied from Wikipedia. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@John of Reading: Yes, I see that. The Justice department piece may of been plagiarized to but this seems like a quite moot point. Either way the review is closed, and if it is opened again I don't know when the submitter will respond if at all. This and another review were his first edits since 2014, so I am unsure if he can even answer any points.JerrySa1 (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposing replacement of headquarters picture[edit]

I took a photograph of Building 92 (the visitor center) this year in May which was in full sunlight with the sun to my back and in which the current Microsoft logo is clearly visible, unlike the current photo of Building 17 in the infobox which was taken on an overcast day and does not show the logo. Any objections before I upload that photo and transfer the infobox photo to the article on the Microsoft headquarters campus? --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Emphasize Cloud in the history[edit]

Microsoft current history is mostly taken from the consumer perspective. It might be also relevant to consider the business/revenue perspective. In the last years, we saw a clear shift of the business model from Microsoft, moving from a Software provider (Windows, Office) to a Service provider (Azure, Office-365), especially in the cloud! According to [1], most growing revenue at Microsoft are coming from services in the cloud!

Thus, I would suggest the article owner/moderator to rewrite a bit the current period "2014-present" of Microsoft history, as also the dedicated article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^