Cwnusa

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Cwnusa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Blowdart | ^talk 15:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Xbox, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The "history" quoted is about a name, rather than the console itself, it simply does not fit within the article. Please don't re-add it. Blowdart | ^talk 15:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Xbox. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Blowdart | ^talk 15:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The box is nothing without its name. It is nonsense to separate the name from the box. What do you think why Microsoft bought the name? 2. At least Bernd H. Pollinger was technical part. 3. Your objection does not meet the reality: The existing article talks about the advertising issue in the UK, which has nothing to do with the box itself - at least not more as its name. Are you measuring with different measures? 4. Many articles are talking about inventions and the names of the inventors and other people who were involved in any way. It is simply part of an encyclopedia to honor poeple who were involved in a world wide known product etc. It is kind of intellectual vandalism to ignore people who participated in an invention. People are interested in the facts I added. 5. What gives you the exclusive right to judge the value of my edits?! I did not edit (or removed any of the existing article, although I do not agree with everything.

Thank you for you respect.

Hi, and thanks for responding. To call someone who had registered the name in a single country, for another purpose of being part of a product that just happened to have the same name is pushing it, to my mind. They didn't have any involvement in the product, its development, its launch and so on; they just happened to be lucky in choosing previously a name than MS wanted. The UK advertising section is still about the xbox, rather than something entirely different. As for Herr Pollinger's contributions, even if there was a decent reference (and google finds nothing for me), he still would not be involved in the xbox specifically, unless he was a member of the Microsoft team that built it. Finally everyone can judge the value of your edits; it just so happens it was me this time around! --Blowdart | ^talk 15:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Blowdart,

I am thankful for every hint.

However I still do not agree with your opinion regarding my xbox edit.

For me it appears pretty arrogant to ignore a part of the xbox history. The history of the idea and its name (and the people behind) is an essential part of the xbox history.

To accuse me of vandalism is detractive.

To make it very clear, here in short:

1. The box is nothing without its name. It is nonsense to separate the name from the box. What do you think why Microsoft bought the name?

2. At least Bernd H. Pollinger was technical part. That you do not find anything at google says nothing, except that it would be pretty poor if all Wikipedia would base on Google information.

3. Your objection does not meet the reality: The existing article talks about the advertising issue in the UK, which has nothing to do with the box itself - at least not more as its name. Are you measuring with different measures?

4. Many articles are talking about inventions and the names of the inventors and other people who were involved in any way. It is simply part of an encyclopedia to honor poeple who were involved in a world wide known product etc. It is kind of intellectual vandalism to ignore people who participated in an invention. People are interested in the facts I added.

5. What gives you the exclusive right to judge the value of my edits?! I did not edit judge or remove any part of the existing article, although I do not agree with everything.

6. Instead of fighting we should find a way to provide the users of wikipedia with correct information. Proposal: We could add part called "History of the xbox Brand" - although this does not meet the reality because Bernd H. Pollinger had the technical idea and proposed this to MS... (I have been in contact with all the involved people.)

Thank you for your respect.

--Cwnusa (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To say that someone who already had the name in a single country was essential of the development of a product is supposition. Unless you can find a good citation where someone from Microsoft says "The name was essential" then what you are claiming is opinion, not fact, and wikipedia is not based on opinion.

Ditto with Herr Pollinger; you must provide citations from reliable sources. Even then your claim is that he held a patent on network gaming consoles; in which case an article on all network gaming consoles would be the place for a reference to him, not on one specific console.

Naming everyone who was involved is not encyclopaedic, and as far as I can see the people you named were not involved. The xbox name you say was previously registered had nothing to do with the development of the console. The patent held is too general to claim involvement in a single development.

As I've said anyone can judge and amend or remove anyone else's contributions. That is how a wiki works. If you don't like this then perhaps a wiki is not the right place for you to make your contributions.

A history of the xbox brand section still wouldn't belong in the xbox article, because the brand you are talking about was limited to a single country and the products under it were not the console itself. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have had a look at the links I provided...

At least, I can see that it is hard to get honored for the involvement in the xbox evolvement as well as it must be really hard to have never been involved in something important at all...

I am sorry bothering Your Grace.

Thank you for your respect.

--Cwnusa (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Xbox history

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Xbox history, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)