Talk:Windows Aero: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:03, 8 May 2006

Inconsistency

The Graphic levels section is inconsistent with Windows Vista#Hardware requirements, which states the following five versions, and includes screenshots of them:

Windows Aero
Standard
Basic
Windows Classic

Wulf 02:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to the similarities of Aqua

The existance of this section is entirely POV. Unless in every article we discuss how A is similar to B and B is similar to C and C is similar to D and so fourth, the inclusion of it is POV. The only way it would be permissible is if it had a notable interaction with the subject. The opinions of web "journalists" (and please, tech journalists are far from the most reliable source) are not facts, not to mention in this case there are factual errors. Paul Cyr 01:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point here is not similar functions, but similar appearance. The remarkable thing, according to many reviewers, is the similarity of the appearance of the Vista/Aero interface to Mac OS X/Aqua, right down to the names. Of course, the context is important too: many Mac users (of whom I am not one) and others believe that Microsoft has imitated the Apple interface over the years. In any case, the observation, sourced in independent third parties, is not POV. -- Gnetwerker 05:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about functions vs. appearance. Should we discuss how GM's interiors have a similar apperance to Honda? As I said before, it opens up a big can of worms that has no impact on the subject. The article you quoted even said "The striking similarity to Mac OS X is purely coincidental, we're sure." The opinions of Mac users is not relevent as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an opinion journal and violates WP:AWW. I suggest you read WP:NOT. Lastly, simply having third parties comment on something does not make it NPOV as those parties must be notable and neutral themselves. The Winsupersite comments are on a personal site and also personal opinion which violates WP:RS, the MacNN article is from a site who's own name shows bias which also violates WP:RS and the PCWorld article was closest to being a reliable source, but even it makes some comment in parenthesis that is off the cuff and could be taken as sarcasm or not depending how you look at it. Paul Cyr 17:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per consensus on Talk:Windows Vista#The_so-called_NPOV_statement, I've removed the comments and NPOV tag. If you do want your comments mentioned, I suggest you start an article on the Windows and OS X GUI disputes as the Aero article is not the place. Paul Cyr 17:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section is completely NPOV, and your objections to it appear to originate from a desire to make this an entirely uncritical page dedicated to the adulation of Microsoft. The concensus on the Vista page was for that page. This page, dedicated to Aero, should include sources which think it is partly an imitation of Mac OS X, as this is an old and well-worn criticism of Microsoft and Windows. -- Gnetwerker 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. -- If you feel this is POV, then edit it to add balancing POV, but if you continue to simply delete it, I will continue to add it. If we need to move straight to mediation, then just say so, and we'll avoid an edit war. -- Gnetwerker 19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted your personal opinions on the subject from the article. Don't re-add them. Warrens 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your deletion of a fully-sourced paragraph. Please do not re-delete it. -- Gnetwerker 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Gnetwerker feels so strongly about reverting against consensus, as per WP:DR I am forwarding the dispute to the Arbitration Committee. Please note Gnetwerker that their decision is FINAL and violating their decision will result in an immediate resrtiction on your editing privilages. Paul Cyr 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tee hee. I am familiar with ArbCom process, no need for a tutorial. Perhaps, however, you should actually read WP:DR, because you have not allowed time for my WP:RFC to garner any input from unbiased outside editors, nor have you requested mediation, both of which are prerequisites to arbitration. In any case, I am confident that you will not like the result of the exposure of your tightly-controlled Microsoft fan pages to independent third-party input. -- Gnetwerker 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but how can this be considered POV? A bunch of reviewers point to the similarity between Aqua and Aero. We state that a bunch of reviewers point to the similarity.

If we were saying "Aero is very similar to Aqua" that would be POV, but that is not what is happening here. AlistairMcMillan 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ::I have reverted your deletion of a fully-sourced paragraph.  Please do not re-delete it. -- [[User:Gnetwerker|Gnetwerker]] 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 :::Since Gnetwerker feels so strongly about reverting against consensus, as per [[WP:DR]] I am forwarding the dispute to the Arbitration Committee.  Please note Gnetwerker that their decision is FINAL and violating their decision will result in an immediate resrtiction on your editing privilages. [[User:Paul Cyr|Paul Cyr]] 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
+::::Tee hee. I am familiar with ArbCom process, no need for a tutorial.  Perhaps, however, you should actually ''read'' [[WP:DR]], because you have not allowed time for my [[WP:RFC]] to garner any input from unbiased outside editors, nor have you requested mediation, both of which are prerequisites to arbitration.  In any case, I am confident that you will not like the result of the exposure of your tightly-controlled Microsoft fan pages to independent third-party input. -- [[User:Gnetwerker|Gnetwerker]] 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 I'm sorry but how can this be considered POV?  A bunch of reviewers point to the similarity between Aqua and Aero.  We state that a bunch of reviewers point to the similarity.