108:
81:
168:
50:
21:
444:
quite explicitly say
Windows 98. One says it in its very title. Find a source that says that it was in Windows 95 and Windows ME as well, and you can change the article to say that. This is how writing verifiable content is done. This is how I, an expert, demonstrate to you and everyone else that
467:
I don't give a shit about your personal knowledge on this (or any other) subject. I really, honestly don't. Nobody else around here cares either, sources are all that matter when working on
Knowledge. The article contains multiple links to information clearly demonstrating that the tool is
274:
intend to use it, the software's help files are much more likely to be used as the source for the requested information than this
Knowledge article will ever be. Therefore, to make this article better, more encyclopedic, the question now is not what should be
200:
This article provides insufficient context to indicate what it is, and no references to indicate why it is notable. If this is something provided with
Windows, it should probably be covered there (if at all).
394:
that mkcompat is only included in
Windows 98. This is incorrect, and we have multiple sources in the article that say exactly this. Why else would we have a reference to the Windows 95 Resource Kit, or to
360:
No, you didn't. You removed information that describes the tool that is the subject of the article. It's information on what it does and why it was important, not an instruction or how-to guide.
299:
Rubbish. You clearly don't have a correct idea of what an instruction manual actually looks like, or of the difference between "information" and "instruction" is, even though it's alluded to in
527:
158:
148:
547:
522:
31:
403:
which all state that it's a part of
Windows 95? I don't care if a book says it's in Windows 98; that doesn't preclude its inclusion in Windows 95 or Windows Me.
537:
124:
237:
It certainly comes much closer to the mark, but interested parties should discuss ways to prevent its deletion or reasons that they won't work at the AfD.
532:
115:
86:
396:
454:
312:
485:
270:
the software, and therefore such text is of no interest to anyone not intending to use it within the next few minutes. For those who
266:
I had to reinsert this tag after it was removed, because much of the article currently reads like an instruction manual for someone
207:
542:
300:
177:
91:
227:
61:
450:
387:
308:
27:
304:
49:
223:
67:
303:. There's not one whit of instruction or advice anywhere in the article. You also need to read your
202:
20:
123:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
120:
504:
410:
367:
337:
contain detailled information about where to find the rest rooms from the main entrance? --
256:
516:
334:
497:
Being an "expert" has failed you here, Mr. Pollard. Next time, do your research.
424:
have a reference to the 95 Resource Kit. It's listed in
Further Reading. And you
238:
107:
80:
329:
removes it again. Just because information is verifiable does not mean
Knowledge
307:. Knowledge editors are not in the business of removing verifiable information.
500:
406:
363:
167:
476:. Why did you do that? Don't give me some hare-brained bullshit about "well
436:
just write from my own personal knowledge on this subject, but I'm making it
488:
and seeing that the tool is indeed included with
Windows 95 and Windows Me.
484:
in Windows 95 or Windows Me, does it? No? You are perfectly capable of
400:
480:
source says it's in Windows 98". So? Your source doesn't say mkcompat
458:
414:
371:
347:
316:
293:
245:
231:
212:
43:
15:
166:
325:
doesn't belong. If you re-add it, don't come crying when
391:
119:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
486:doing a Google search for "mkcompat windows 95"
8:
279:to this article, but rather what should be
47:
75:
528:Low-importance Microsoft Windows articles
445:I'm not just making stuff up. It's how
133:Knowledge:WikiProject Microsoft Windows
77:
548:WikiProject Microsoft Windows articles
523:Start-Class Microsoft Windows articles
333:have it. Should the article about the
136:Template:WikiProject Microsoft Windows
538:Unknown-importance Computing articles
7:
470:right the fuck there in front of you
113:This article is within the scope of
66:It is of interest to the following
30:on 10 February 2009. The result of
468:included in Windows 95. They are
14:
222:This is a notable article now. --
106:
79:
48:
19:
301:Knowledge:What Knowledge is not
153:This article has been rated as
26:This article was nominated for
533:Start-Class Computing articles
474:willfully chose to ignore them
388:User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
386:I am frankly a bit baffled by
1:
459:02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
415:19:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
372:19:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
348:17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
317:13:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
294:23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
246:16:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
232:13:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
175:This article is supported by
127:and see a list of open tasks.
116:WikiProject Microsoft Windows
283:from its current version. --
213:02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
564:
428:care what the book says.
159:project's importance scale
139:Microsoft Windows articles
451:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
449:demonstrate that, too.
309:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
174:
152:
101:
74:
382:Introduced in Windows 95
305:Knowledge:Editing policy
430:The book is the source.
36:Withdrawn by nominator.
543:All Computing articles
397:this article from 1997
171:
56:This article is rated
178:WikiProject Computing
170:
321:I just removed what
224:Marshall T. Williams
172:
62:content assessment
345:
291:
193:
192:
189:
188:
185:
184:
130:Microsoft Windows
121:Microsoft Windows
87:Microsoft Windows
42:
41:
555:
503:
409:
366:
344:
342:
290:
288:
261:
255:
243:
210:
205:
141:
140:
137:
134:
131:
110:
103:
102:
97:
94:
83:
76:
59:
53:
52:
44:
23:
16:
563:
562:
558:
557:
556:
554:
553:
552:
513:
512:
499:
440:for you.) The
405:
384:
362:
338:
284:
264:
259:
253:
239:
220:
208:
203:
198:
138:
135:
132:
129:
128:
95:
89:
60:on Knowledge's
57:
12:
11:
5:
561:
559:
551:
550:
545:
540:
535:
530:
525:
515:
514:
511:
510:
509:
508:
492:
491:
490:
489:
462:
461:
383:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
353:
352:
351:
350:
263:
250:
249:
248:
219:
216:
197:
196:Article issues
194:
191:
190:
187:
186:
183:
182:
173:
163:
162:
155:Low-importance
151:
145:
144:
142:
125:the discussion
111:
99:
98:
96:Low‑importance
84:
72:
71:
65:
54:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
560:
549:
546:
544:
541:
539:
536:
534:
531:
529:
526:
524:
521:
520:
518:
507:
506:
502:
496:
495:
494:
493:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
466:
465:
464:
463:
460:
456:
452:
448:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:
417:
416:
413:
412:
408:
402:
398:
393:
389:
381:
373:
370:
369:
365:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
349:
341:
336:
335:Louvre Museum
332:
328:
324:
320:
319:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
297:
296:
295:
287:
282:
278:
273:
269:
258:
251:
247:
244:
242:
236:
235:
234:
233:
229:
225:
217:
215:
214:
211:
206:
195:
180:
179:
169:
165:
164:
160:
156:
150:
147:
146:
143:
126:
122:
118:
117:
112:
109:
105:
104:
100:
93:
88:
85:
82:
78:
73:
69:
63:
55:
51:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
498:
481:
477:
473:
472:and yet you
469:
446:
442:sources used
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
404:
385:
361:
339:
330:
327:someone else
326:
322:
285:
280:
276:
271:
267:
265:
240:
221:
199:
176:
154:
114:
68:WikiProjects
35:
401:MSKB 173086
58:Start-class
517:Categories
438:verifiable
392:insistence
340:Blanchardb
286:Blanchardb
92:Computing
399:, or to
346:- timed
292:- timed
28:deletion
323:clearly
281:removed
241:MrZaius
218:Notable
157:on the
505:-talk-
501:Warren
426:should
420:We do
411:-talk-
407:Warren
368:-talk-
364:Warren
64:scale.
482:isn't
434:could
277:added
268:using
257:howto
209:matic
204:Bongo
455:talk
331:must
313:talk
252:The
228:talk
34:was
447:you
432:(I
422:not
390:'s
262:tag
149:Low
519::
478:my
457:)
315:)
272:do
260:}}
254:{{
230:)
90::
453:(
343:-
311:(
289:-
226:(
181:.
161:.
70::
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
