Talk:Microsoft .NET strategy

Office XP

@Codename Lisa: Do you think it would be appropriate for one to mention Microsoft Office XP somewhere in the article, as it was considered at one time to be at least a part of the .NET strategy? (IanWilliam20 (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC))

Hi. :)

I plan to do an expansion of the article next week. I think I can mention it there. Because there is no ".NET" in the app name, nor was it ever meant to be, I think its mention is only appropriate after the article provided a little more reading material.

Still, if you have time, please feel free to expand the article based on the existing sources. They have a lot of unique materal we can add.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I apologize for not responding to you sooner. Do you still plan to expand the article this week? I am also sorry that I have not expanded the article; I prioritized several other articles, but I do not mean to take you for granted. You explicitly stated (emphasis) "They have a lot unique material we can add" and it seems that we do not work in that manner as often as is preferred. (IanWilliam20 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC))

Hi.

I think I even started working on it too. (Check the revision history.) But yeah, something came up. Sorry. I'll see what I can do. But please don't hesitate to do any contribution you plan to make to the subject. Wikipedia is supposed speed things up by permitting unobstructed editing, not hinder them because of politeness.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent dispute - hatnote and tense

Greetings, fellow earthlings. 🙂

First, let's acknowledge the elephant in the room: There is a dispute involving three editor; one registered editor and two IP editors. One of these editor -- I don't say who -- has started this dispute extremely poorly; the other two have responded poorly. And an admin has participated that handled the matter poorly. If these editors wish to change course, sit down and discuss things like friends, this thread is for them. From this point onward, I shall address the article content only. User:C. A. Russell has indicated the he or she is willing to have a third person's opinion. Well, here it is. Take it or leave it.

Tense: All three editors have used WP:COMPNOW and WP:TENSE (using varying shortcut links) to defend their dispute over the following sentences:

• The Microsoft .NET strategy is a software development and marketing plan that Microsoft used in the early 2000s
• The Microsoft .NET strategy was a software development and marketing plan that Microsoft used in the early 2000s

I have read both WP:COMPNOW and MOS:TENSE. The former only concerns itself with "describ[ing] genres, types and classes", so it does not endorse or condemn any of these two sentences. The latter says past tense is okay for "dead subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such". Microsoft .NET strategy has never been meaningfully alive. So, I'd use the past tense here, especially since it agrees with the verb "used" that follows.

This compromise has also been offered.

• The Microsoft .NET strategy is a 2000s software development and marketing plan of Microsoft Corporation.

This sentence is, for all intents and purposes, superior to both of the above, and is using the present tense. But User:C. A. Russell has rejected it. I think he/she needs to elaborate as to why.

Hatnote: The following reasons has been given for not including ".NET Core" into the hatnote:

1. Looks like either vandalism or something equally damaging

2. Adhering to the principle of least astonishment. Also per WP:HAT, hatnotes must not advertise other articles. No one confuses ".NET Core" with "Microsoft .NET". Some people confuse [unexpected end of text]

The following reasons has been given for adding ".NET Core" into the hatnote:

3. Revert reverts

4. I'm beginning to suspect bitter-consultant-style bias in favor of 2000s-era .NET and against current .NET ecosystem

I refrain from commenting on 1 and 4 because they are personal attack. #3 is zero-informative. That leave with #2. I have no idea what "principle of least astonishment" has to do with anything here. But looking at WP:HAT, I see this:

Disambiguation hatnotes are intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title. They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other.

Well, yes. It makes perfect sense. ".NET Framework" is recurrently called ".NET" or "Microsoft .NET" only. But not ".NET Core". By the time ".NET Core" came, ".NET Framework" had already entrenched itself as "the .NET".

So, here is the opinion you requested from a fourth party. I hope it helps.

139.99.159.11 (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

That an ESL speaker editing from a VPN has shown up after taking such an intense interest in this dispute and is purporting to be a unbiased third-party is wholly unsurprising.

That the message above gets a number of background facts wrong and just so happens to also misrepresent guidelines and offer bad inferences based on what those guidelines say is also unsurprising.

That the editor dismisses two admins' involvement with no comment besides saying that one of them handled things "poorly" is unsurprising, too.

And finally, that the opinion above just so happens to recommend a number of things that end up uniformly agreeing with the last edits made by the one at the other end of this dispute *is* surprising.

Just kidding. Nothing surprising about that one, either. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, you seem to have no comment on the subject itself. Just more personal attacks. 31.214.146.238 (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, for the sake of argument, let's assume every single IP editor who has been here so far is one person. (And let's forget your WP:ALLSOCKS rhetoric.) What is your counter-argument? 31.214.146.238 (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Geez, can you seriously knock it off with the misleading edit summaries? I realize you stand to profit from it if a third-party editor tries to weigh in after only superficially skimming what's happened, but I'm going to call it out every time, so just stop.

1. "the message above gets a number of background facts wrong"

2. "misrepresent guidelines and offer bad inferences based on what those guidelines say"

3. It's not even my responsibility to satisfy you on matter—I don't need a "counter-argument"; it's *your* obligation to show that your attempts at gatekeeping are justified

MOS:TENSE and your WP:OWNership problem have been the issue for the entire duration of the dispute. Do you really expect to call for feedback and have me spend 15 minutes composing a response only to have to point to the *same* problems that you chose to ignore the last time?

That you're now also trying to sneak in edits to remove mention of .NET Core (and confuse what the original dispute was about) is beyond tasteless. An editor added the hatnote to disambiguate "Microsoft .NET" wrt ".NET Core" and ".NET Framework". You want it out, because "No one confuses" them. Clearly, someone does think that people would confuse them. I think that assessment is sound. You don't have any sort of overriding vote here to be able to exercise final editorial control, and I don't know why you seem to think you do. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

....aaaand User:Extremecia just fixed the MOS:TENSE issue. I'll be doing a copyedit to fix the other awkward prose. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@User:C. A. Russell Holy crap, I see a simpe grammatical error ("would made"), fix it and the next thing I know, I'm in a middle of a game of thrones! I received no less than four emails today from Wikipedia and two notification thingy! And my watchlist suddenly grew double in size.

For the record, I did not fix the tense issue. Two of the IP editors have done it twice in the past. Twice you reverted them and swore them off. So, don't mis-credit me for it. I want nothing to do with this fight of yours. So, please don't ping me, don't ask for my assistance, and if you ever tried to leverage admin intervention to win this fight, do not quote me in your defense or drag me into noticeboards. In fact, let me say it outright: You are ruining the article with tendentious editing and you could have conducted yourself much better.

I am also seeing a couple of mistakes that you introduced but I am not going to edit them, 'cause I want nothing to do with this minefield anymore. Just for the record: "then-current CEO" is not English. The correct form is "CEO at the time", but Ballmer was not a CEO at that certain time.

Extremecia (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

With respect, it is not a 1990s strategy; I suspect the mention of 1995 might have confused you, but this year is the time when they last have a bold plan. 31.214.146.238 (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Feel free to correct it and not call me. Extremecia (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record:

I did not ping, call, ask you for assistance, or hint that I would, or hint towards any of the aspersions you've cast here. If you got any notifications, it's because of your account settings. The only thing I did with respect to you was mention the name of your account when I discussed your edit in the comment you're replying to here.

Second, you've completely gotten the material facts wrong here—even reversing which position I'm aligned with in this dispute. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)