My son setup Gamepass a few years ago. It was the biggest rip off I've ever seen. So many things about Microsoft are out of kilter. I'm about to migrate my daughter away from a 3 year old Lenovo Yoga to a Macbook Air M5 - it's just too hard to administer, its now sluggish and the AI is completely in the way. She doesn't need it, and despite a few business practices of Apple I don't really like if I have to choose between them and Microsoft, then I choose Apple.
I was not like this as a teenager. I went through DOS, Windows 3.1x, Window 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000/XP and then all the way to Windows 7. I have completely changed my mind now, it's really only Apple I want to use. Everything about Apple is easier.
Even more incredible that someone who represents an organisation is allowed to edit the English Wikipedia under that username! Anyone else would have their account banned.
But hey, don't expect consistency or fairness from the ones on the English Wikipedia.
Do you have proof there are more editors now? By an order of magnitude? Or don’t mean there are people who like to participate in Wikipedia drama and who don’t actively contribute to article creation?
Given the people now running the English Wikipedia, this is hardly surprising. Most of these folks have no real interest in article creation, only drama and fiddling with things like categories.
I missed that, which is a pity as it's a fruitful story and I must have slipped up as it looks quite a-peeling. Certainly I clicked on this story as it stood out from the bunch.
That's nothing. He have Surface Pro laptops, and of course it has Copilot built in. I tried to open an app by typing in a search. On versions without Copilot turned on, instantly finds the app. On a Surface Pro, takes a good 20-30 seconds for it even start the search.
Complete rubbish. Not a single person in the organisation likes the new Outlook.
Indeed. The person who responded made the following points:
* BHG then made a thuggish and threatening post on your user page:
* BHG later characterised this like "oh but he was trolling me and I merely asked him one time on his talk page to stop (which is allowed)", which is bollocks because the "one time" is a long, angry screed written in a menacing tone.
And yet, no action was taken against her. I wonder why that was? And yet I was the one who was indefinitely banned. There was clear bias, and Wikipedia lost a good contributor. One I would say did far more than she ever did (she dealt with categories and dead links, and one article relating to Ireland).
Incidentally, if you want to know what the poster missed... it was that it was a one-way interaction ban. BHG was never, not even once, admonished for the way she treated me. In fact, her supporters actively encouraged her to attack me. When she attacked me, I was unable to defend myself or respond. Does that sound like procedural fairness to you?
Funnily enough, she did this to one too many people and was banned. I was banned by her supporters, not by ArbCom. It's what is known as a kangaroo court.
But hey, fairness and impartiality on Wikipedia was something that was lost a long time ago. Wikipedia is continuing to slide into obscurity. The ones who are active are most interested in drama, and not content. I feel sorry for those who are there for the content.
And why was that interaction ban enacted? It was immenseley unfair. It was pathetic in fact, given it was a one-way ban, and she had consistently denigrated me. Unless you think that's justice.
So no, not the pot calling the kettle black in any way. She had her coiterie of followers, and she was banned as a bully. They enabled her.
Everything I ever added was kept, and I was permanently banned. I created [ciation needed], started the admins noticeboard, reworked the USA Patriot Act article, wrote numerous articles for WiR with extensive referencing, contributed to peer review and good article reviews, and a shitload more, but nope. Not good enough.
Why anyone would contribute to that cesspool is anyone’s guess.