Talk:Main Page

From BetaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Unorganized threads[edit]

I think it's a good idea to put Internet Explorer in a easy-to-access page. --X010 (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2013 (BST)¨

Why was my first comment deleted?--X010 (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2013 (BST)

Maybe because you asked for something which is clearly stated when you try to edit the main page: (High traffic page) --JaGoTu (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2013 (BST)

Hi. I haven't signed up yet and I noticed all the questions are about Windows. It's definitely not the only OS with an interesting history, and some answers I don't even know. 108.180.46.60 07:26, 11 September 2014 (BST)

Should you add build 9888 to the main page? Tau Ceti (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2014 (GMT)

Please block user '213.251.182.11' is vandalising pages. Tau Ceti (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2014 (GMT)

Visual Styles vandalism[edit]

No, the page itself has not been vandalised, but one of its subpages has. I created the 'Experimental Whistler Themes' subpage of Windows:Visual Styles and the page has been moved. Check it yourself. If you can see the changed page title, then can you please deal with whoever did this quickly? Thank you. Tau Ceti (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2014 (BST)

OK, thank you, whoever did that. Turns out they already have changed it back to its regular page! Can you make sure that user does not vandalise any more important pages? I'm sorry... I didn't realise, it just happened so soon. Tau Ceti (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2014 (BST)

Taken from BetaArchive Wiki[edit]

I have noticed on the wiki that a large amount of the used text is copied directly from BetaArchive Wiki. It would be much better if people put the research in their own words, right? Tau Ceti (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2014 (GMT)

The original userbase of BetaWiki does do its own research, I can mention the Windows 8.1 Preview or Windows 1.0 Developer Release #5 articles. However, certain users seem to go by their own way of copypasting other wikis' content. --AlphaBeta (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2014 (GMT)
I said a large amount. Not all of it! Tau Ceti (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2014 (GMT)
And of course I don't copypaste. No one likes a hypocrite, not least on a wiki like this one. Tau Ceti (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2014 (GMT)
I said "certain users", not "Tau Ceti". --AlphaBeta (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2015 (GMT)
OK fine. Sorry. --Tau Ceti (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2015 (GMT)

Regarding build lists here...[edit]

Hello everyone, I was browsing through BA and came across this topic by BA member Overdoze (aka DeFacto): http://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33195
I am DiskingRound on BA, just registered on a different name.
I decided to remove any build numbers that I could not find sources for, and am still in the process of doing so.
All this was done with my mind and my knowledge on file versions, so if you think I made a mistake, feel free to correct it and add the build again, along with your source.
If you don't have a source for a build you want to add, then don't add it - it reduces clutter on the builds lists and we want to make sure only builds with sources are added.
All that unconfirmed/fake builds with no sources do is add clutter to the build lists. For example, where the heck did builds 1725.3, 1738, 1749, etc. of Windows 98 come from?
So that's why I did this. As I said before, unconfirmed/fake builds with no sources just add clutter to the builds lists. Like, "I know of Whistler 2426, but I forgot the source, but I'll add it anyway!" (No I don't).
As I said before, don't. Not adding it will reduce a lot of clutter on the build lists. If you don't remember your source or don't have one, don't add it.
TL;DR: I removed most of the builds from lists here that have no sources. If you think I made a mistake, feel free to correct it along with your source, whether it be a file version, mention in a document or warez CD list, a screenshot, etc. Builds with no sources just add clutter to lists, nothing else.
Thanks a lot for your time reading this. --InfinityPlus1 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2015 (GMT)

Thanks a lot for making BetaWiki better, be it in small steps. In fact, I was planning to do such cleanup when I get more free time. --AlphaBeta (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2015 (GMT)
If they are unconfirmed, we DONT know if they are real or fake but there might be info somewhere out there, so Ill just leave them, also, you never know if someone will add the info or have actual proff. --Johnleakedfan (talk) 1:53 am, 18 October 2015 (GMT)
First, use ~~~~ (four tildes) to sign your comments, it's faster than writing it all yourself. Second, unsourced is not equal to unconfirmed. Unconfirmed means there is a mention of the respective build tag, but it isn't confirmed whether the build is legit. --AlphaBeta (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2015 (BST)

I'm worried...[edit]

The recent wave of vandalism is getting me to wonder whether BetaWiki can survive or not. What do you think? Tau Ceti (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2015 (GMT)

Nope, it can survive. I'm here to ban any vandal. --Ovctvct (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2015 (GMT)

User rights[edit]

What is the auto confirm age set to? 2002:43F4:3ABB:1234:585E:7CD:5BFE:95A8 12:33, 3 March 2016 (GMT)