User talk:82.236.210.11

Your viewpoint in Windows 9x area

Hello.

I saw your edits in Windows 95, Windows 9x and Windows ME articles and I must say, in general, three things are not allowed in Wikipedia: Original research, biased point of view and angry counter-contributions.

So, I think you had the right to remove the assertions of "being DOS-based" until someone provide a source. However, for the same reasons, your contributions in Windows 95 article, as well as the related unreferenced opposing contributions that were in effect, were all removed until you or the person who made those comments supply a source.

In the event that there was dispute in the future, please use talk pages to discuss the matter over before making any changes to the article. (Please see WP:BRD and WP:DR.) Also, please do not hesitate to contact me, if you think I can be of assistance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. You had attempted to use a {{url=ftp}} template which, as you can see, does not exist. What was that? Your attempt to provide a source? If you tell me what you were trying to achieve, I can probably help. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

I'm reasonably familiar with wikipedia.

I had a source in one of the things you removed. Which was not even from me, only cut off and reworked by me.

Here is the source for the MS POV.

ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/peropsys/win_news/News%26Events/WinNews/vol%202%20%23%202.txt

Thing is, for people to make a judgement on this, you have to really know what you're talking about.

You have to know about 386, dos memory layout, protected, real and v86 mode, 16 and 32 bits, and OS architecture in general, all this at the assembly level preferably, and you have to be honest about what can reasonably be called 'to be based upon' or 'to only sit on top of'. Then you have to distinguish the problematics of legacy virtualization. Then you need not having been a linux zealot in the 90s, as this false claim repeated for years was very important for their ego. I have searched the net and found and read Schulman and Chen, and corrected the articles. That's it. I stop here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.210.11 (talk)

Hello again. So that {{url=ftp}} things that I saw in the footnotes section was your source! Well, my friend, if you supply a source in manner that users cannot read, are they to blame? Please consider using proper format:

• Simple form:
  • <ref>[http://www.example.com Example.com website]</ref>
  • Not recommended, breaks often
• Full form:
  • <ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.example.com |title=Example.com website |publisher=IANA |accessdate=29 April 2013}}</ref>
  • Use "Cite" interface in your web browser to create this format

Now, you have a source, I can fix a couple of things and bring some of your edits back.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I think I have put the source in the correct format. I put it in the Windows 95 article at the end of the first paragraph of said section. It illustrates the fact there has been a debate and MS POV. Have a nice day.

Thanks. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

---