User talk:46.8.174.181

Your edits

Hello, we have noticed that you tend to make misleading edits based on facts that might be true, but are not applicable in the given context, for example:

• adding x64 and IA-64 architectures to the Windows XP build 2600.5512 page, which you justified by the fact Windows XP overall was available for these architectures, even though that obviously doesn't apply to that specific build
• removing the x86 architecture from the Windows Server 2012 build 8250 page, which you justified by the fact Windows Server 2012 was only available for x64, even though the very first paragraph actually explains the origin of the x86 compile

Please understand that what applies to a build might not necessarily apply to the version as a whole, and vice versa. Also please note that editors, while encouraged to supply a reason for reverting edits, are not required to do so, especially in cases like above when the contribution is inherently incorrect. If someone reverts your contributions, you should reconsider the value and factuality of your changes instead of recklessly reverting the revert, which is rather disruptive and wastes everybody's time. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 21:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, since Windows Server 2012 is only available in x64 architecture, there is no way to download the x86 version, because it doesn't exist. One of my another contributions, on the article about Windows XP build 2600.5512, I added that it also has the x64 and IA-64 versions. The latest revert comment on that article says that a 64-bit version of Windows XP is a little bit different. Do you mean Windows XP Professional x64 Edition? It has the x64 version. Also, I'm asking a reason for reverting because: Reason for blocking other users = reason for reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.8.174.181 (talk • contribs)

You are definitely not looking into beta builds of Windows Server 2012, which do support x86. About Windows XP 64-bit, yes, it's the Professional x64 Edition, and support for IA-64 was dropped with Service Pack 2 (you are editing the build 2600.5512/SP3 article). It's not required to provide a reason for reverting your edits, because not providing a reason is basically you wasting your time and others' time. You must also sign your comments and replies with four tildes (~~~~). NaraInsider1694 (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

And again, that does not mean that individual builds cannot be built for these architectures. In fact, there are some pretty extreme cases (build 2210 and build 15035) of a build being compiled for an architecture that Windows did not officially support for years. Or are you saying that these builds are fake and we are just hallucinating? --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 09:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No, these builds aren't fake, I said in my previous comment that for example, since Windows Server 2012 doesn't have the x86 version, there is no way to install it on 32-bit systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.8.174.181 (talk • contribs)

Bruh. Its the build itself not the OS. Also dont use {{Unsigned}} to sign your comments, use ~~~~ instead.Shams1917 (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)