Jump to content

Talk:MSN Messenger/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:MSN Messenger

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Griffinofwales (talk | contribs) at 14:23, 21 May 2010 (archive more). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ArchiveĀ 1ArchiveĀ 2ArchiveĀ 3

Compatibility

MSN Messenger is an instant messaging client for Windows and Mac OS computers (officially, but
can be run on virtually any computer with an  Internet connection, see Third-party clients)

This information is wrong, there is a Web-based MSN Messenger client from Microsoft (http://webmessenger.msn.com/), thus MSN Messenger is available officially for any computer with an Internet connection.

I would say that's a bit of an exaggeration - web messenger won't run on older machines that don't meet the specs for the minimum browser requirements. Say I've got a 286 running DOS and Lynx as my browser - would Web Messenger run on that? But I DO have ann internet connection!
The official specs are: "Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 or later, Netscape 7.1 or later, or Mozilla 1.6 or later, running in Microsoft Windows." from [1]. The eMessenger project at [2] allows Messenger access via WAP though.
I Totally Suport The Idea Of The Mix Of The To MSN Messengers But Compatibility Should Not Be An Issue Here. Its Called Windows Live Messenger To be A Part Of The New Set Of Stuff Coming Out Of Microsoft. Technically Its Called That But Its Still MSN Messenger 8.0. Sure It Has Way Higher System Requirements But Look At MSN Messenger 6 And 7, Did They Not Have Different System Requirements ( If They Did Not My Bad Cause i Have No Clue Myself ) ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.72.113 (talk ā€¢ contribs)
Just mention it later in the article in a list of alternatives or in its own section if enough information is available that we won't be repeating ourselves. JordanZed 13:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MSN [web] Messenger

MSN Messenger refers to the application itself, not to the protocol. Therefore MSN Web Messenger is a different article.. a stub anyone?

maybe a REDIRECT would be more appropriate
Maybe a REDIRECT would be in order but only if Windows Live Messenger is mixed with MSN Messenger ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.72.113 (talk ā€¢ contribs) Oops I'm a little late.

how many users?

Is there information anywhere on how many people use MSN Messenger? I know that in the AIM article it said there was 195 million people using AIM, I'm curious if there is a number for MSN Messenger as well.

I can't find the links I'm thinking of at the moment, but there's this, a little outdated, but specifies 120 million users each month. 9 July 2005 06:37 (UTC)
I've read 150+ million users on Microsofts web site only some days ago. --Shreddy 14:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

When was first released

There has to be some information about when the first version was released. What about posting a change log of all the different versions. There is more information out there!

MSN Messenger Service (original, formal name), version 1.0.0863 was released on July 22nd, 1999. Sources: Microsoft PressPass, Meeting by Wire 9 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)

YAHHHHHH

Yahoo + MSN integrate userbase

I've made moderate changes to the competition section of this article based on the recent news development that Yahoo and MSN will introduce interoperability between the two messengers. Here are several links to improve the quality of my quick contribution:

http://messenger.yahoo.com/partners_msn.php;_ylt=AkW4EDOueQMPf_Wc.qKLUkNwMMIF http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2143773/yahoo-msn-marry-messengers

Criticism and NPOV

The article states: "Some believe that this is a way of forcing Macintosh users to use Windows, so they may use the complete MSN Messenger."

I find it hard to believe that a significant number of Macintosh users believe that Microsoft intends to force an OS switch by merely omitting some features in their IM client. Conversely one might conclude that Apple's iChat AV is a way of forcing Windows users to use Mac OS X becaues it supports multi-person audio and video conferencing and does not offer a Windows client.

By the same argument, Microsoft is also trying to force Windows users to use Windows by offering similarly "limited, featureless" IM support to users of their Windows Messenger client which is included in Windows. The paragraph mentions lacking webcam and ink support which are lacking in Windows Messenger.

In either case, it's a baseless conspiracy theory and has no place in a neutral encyclopedia article (NPOV policy). Considering these facts, the criticism does not seem worthy of mention in the article.

One way around this might be to make a tabular feature comparison between the various versions, beginning with comparisons of the stand alone client, Mac client, and Webmessenger client.

Perhaps something similar to the one found here: Comparison of instant messengers

-- N okla 21:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Messenger 7.5 and Passport

Does anyone have more info on this line in the document?

"Introduced a new sign-in method, dropping the built in Passport creditentials system in Windows XP"'

My first impression was that MSN Messenger 7.5 was dropping Passport, but a look at the app indicates otherwise. I think the article needs some clarification in this regard.

-- N okla 22:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That does sound a bit off. Previously it used the creditentials system is Windows XP, which has a special thing for Passport accounts ('Manage my network password' in User Accounts). Here's an explanation from a program manager: New Login UI and Platform: The Identity Services team (passport) has created a client library called the Identity Client Run Time Library (or IDCRL for short). It provides a richer programming model and easier integration of passport authentication services into messenger. In other words: Improved Login functionality including reliability, auto-complete in the login address well; ability to save login information. Duphus 01:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Since "dropping the built-in Passport credentials" seems misleading, I'm changing it to this: "Introduced an updated Passport creditentials system." -- N okla 02:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Malware

Shouldn't some mention be made of the insipid and various MSN worms that mimic someone messaging you and invite you to download the worm in the guise of a sent-file? Those used to be teh suck.

I supposed there could be a section explaining it is a frequent target, new ones pop up quite regulary, go ahead and add it if you want. Duphus 08:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


Criticism

The URL pointing to the online competition does not exist anymore. Line deleted.


.php blocking?

The whole "MSN Messenger blocks PHP webhosts!" thing seems a bit far-fetched and probably a falsified flame made by a troll. I vote for the removal of the section. --W3bbo

Most of the text there seems POV, but it is correct it blocks text containing download.php and gallery.php. No announcement has been made regarding this, but I personally believe it is an effort to stop worms. Such messages may contain: "OMG LOOK FUNNERZ PIC: http://www.messengerspam.com/gallery.php?user@hotmail.com", which downloads the worm EXE for the user to run. I suggest a rewrite of that bit. Duphus 08:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I made a thread on MSDN's Channel 9 about this "php blockage" and it seems that this is real. I notice that someone has removed the section on it, perhaps it needs to be restored (after all, it is pretty important that MSN is Censoring MSN Messenger without telling us!). The thread and evidence is available here: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=144437 W3bbo 02:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I have a feeling there actually were worms containing download.php and gallery.php, but I can't find any community news coverage (there usually is). In which case what they're doing is quite valid: stopping worm prorogation. The blocking did receive coverage when it was discovered and the only point the anti-PHP nonsense popped up was by crackpot speculators trying to make news "better", even as the text said, it was rumours. Perhaps the article could have a section on its IM worms, it is quite a problem. Duphus 04:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Correct. I have worked as an intern at Microsoft last summer with the Messenger server team, and have found the source code to only contain references to URLs known to host virusses. They are not censoring, merely protecting the users. ā€”The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.109.198.213 (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Also just remembered that when either of the two phrases are received by the server, the IM session/connection is dropped. So, if there are more than two people in the conversation, everyone is kicked out. This is also another possible reason why they've tried to keep it low profile, since anyone can end a multi-party conversation. Another one, the text ".pif" and ".scr" does the same thing, .pif couldn't get more obvious that it is to stop worms. Duphus 04:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I re-added the section with a bit better wording. Some more citations would be nice though. // Gargaj 15:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this censorship even real? I used Gaim and IMed myself and tested every string that was supposedly censored by MSN, and nothing happened. Everything was like it was normally. Here's a screenshot to prove it: [3] TanookiMario257 06:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is real, but probably client side. I tried sending from Gaim to my friend who uses the latest version of MSN and he didn't receive the message. Sadly, my reason was legitimate, too. This really doesn't stop worms anywho, you could just as easily use foo.php instead of download.php Dustin 15:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

removed

"and see the new version, rather than downloading and installing the full program.and it had stuff in it like colors and everthing i dont no tho..."

I just removed the above from 1.11 MSN Messenger QFE Patch. Can someone who is involved in this article add any information from it back into the article. The bellman 09:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"and see the new version, rather than downloading and installing the full program" is supposed to be there with another piece, I've restored it... think it was just a random deletion by vandal. Duphus 12:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

IE6 required?

I have tried to install MSN Messenger 7.0 and then uninstall IE6 in my Windows 2000, and the MSN Messenger still works. So, why they have been specified to require IE6 as a prerequisite? --Hello World! 02:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it heavily relys on it. But off the top of my head one of the things it needs IE6 for is the message history, does it render message history for a user in the normal way? Duphus 08:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean the message history? I have noticed that they are XML files, so they can be viewed by any XML parsers or XML editors. --Hello World! 02:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's the XSL styling pre-IE6 can't handle properly. What do you mean by uninstalling IE6? Switching to 5.5 or removing it completely? If the latter, then I think the browser control is still there, which is used when you right click > View Message History (or something). Duphus 04:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Messenger Plus

Does anyone know anything on messenger plus[4]? Cheers --LeftyG 06:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

See Messenger Plus!. FireFox 09:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I loaded it once... got pounded with pop ups and spyware...would not recommend it.--Mfinney 04:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
You should have checked the "no adware" option. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

emoticons/games

There are way more than 4 games.. should there be a list? And is anyone going to write about how the emoticons and emoticon set have changed through the versions? 203.218.88.47 09:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you there should be a list. --Terence Ong Talk 05:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's a list of MSN Messenger v6.0 emoticons: [5] --Freethemustard 07:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's the v3.6 - v4.6 list of MSN Messenger emoticons: [6] --Freethemustard 07:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
And here's the list of the latest version (v7.5) emoticons: [7] --Freethemustard 07:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

License

Isn't MSN Messenger adware because it is ad-supported? The bottom of the main window has a small graphical banner, and the bottom of every conversation window has a single line text ad. Wilson 05:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are millions of people using MSN, and Microsoft hasn't receive complains yet. I think those are sponsored. Also, I don't see a single line text ad at the bottom of every coversation. --Terence Ong Talk 17:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
There are single line ads nowWolfmankurd 17:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Technically since MSN Messenger has a banner graphic, it IS an ad-supported software (aka adware), however MSN is a much less invasive type of adware, since it only features ads on the program itself, and doesn't bring ads to outside of the program (i.e. it doesn't display popups, or bundle other adwares, etc).

Custom game patch/Activity SDK

Should the custom game patch information be removed since Microsoft released the Activity SDK?

MSN Messenger 7.5.0322 has been pulled

More infomation here http://spaces.msn.com/members/messenger-support/blog/cns!1pUFzGgzjAV-OT0jri_AqaGw!1683.entry and www.msnfanatic.com so u might wana change latest version infomation Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakesā€”they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.SoothingR 21:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Winks

Are "winks" really Flash animations, as stated in this article? Ehn 10:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Version 6.2 (MSNP10) no longer allowed

After having used 6.2 for quite some time I was denied access today after a reboot. So I guess MSNP version 10 is no longer allowed, and you have to use a newer client. Verification from another user with regards to this would be welcome. I'll see what version I have at work and test some more tomorrow. --Harald ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.125.177.2 (talk ā€¢ contribs) 07:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


After testing from work I found out that version 7.0 still work, but I don't know which protocol it uses. I guess it's MSNP11 but I'm not sure. --Harald ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.125.177.2 (talk ā€¢ contribs) 08:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Name Change - MergeĀ ?

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to merge, but move to History of Windows Live Messenger. However, upon further examination, this page was moved after only a day of voting. Therefore, there was no consensus for either proposal. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft has recently announced MSN is going to be split away from the rest of their online services, and that MSN Messenger will be merged with Windows Messenger, to be renamed Windows Live Messenger. Can anyone update the article for this change?

Some resources:

Live.com: http://ideas.live.com/mainpage.aspx

Announcement of MSN's name change: http://spaces.msn.com/members/MessengerSays/

I think the article should remain, but when the rebrand has gone through (Windows Live Messenger is released), it should be modified to state that it is now defunct (or a more appropriate word) and has a new name, articles for Windows Live and Windows Live Messenger have already been created.
I don't think the way you put it is very accurate, Windows Messenger doesn't really have anything to do with this. This press release is a good source for info. Duphus 08:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge to WLM

  • Against - Come on now, use your common sense. Windows Live Messenger and MSN Messenger are clearly different. The fact that they have the same creator does not make them the same product. Cyclonenim 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. MSN Messenger is slated to become Windows Live Messenger. As soon as it goes live, any MSN Messenger queries should be redirected to a page about WLM. Common sense, as Mr. Fenton suggested above, would suggest having the new product replace the old one.
  • Nope - Their different products made differently. MSN Messenger was made by Microsofts MSN, and Windows Live Messenger is kinda like the renewal of the old unpopluar Windows Messenger which is auto installed on Windows. Plus more people use MSN Messenger than Windows Live, and Windows Live hasn't been released in a stable verison. Its still a beta. Koolgiy 19:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. WLM is only for Windows XP or above. Why merge MSN Messenger with this when the requirements are different? Thats like saying "Let's merge Windows 3.11 with Windows Vista"
Dustin 19:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per the discussion directly below. Windows itself is an excellent analogy. We don't have Windows 3.1 in the same article with Windows xp. There are enough changes for this to be viewed in a separate article. - jc37 16:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The content is entirely different between the two articles. And merging them would create a rather large article, that we'd have to find some way to split anyway (a spilt which would be along these lines anyway). - jc37 20:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It already has: History of MSN Messenger, Games and applications for Windows Live Messenger. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick responseĀ : ) - While I was going to mention that This article has more than the "histroy" article, and has a clearer name (especially since there are some users who still use the older products), I note that that article is up for deletion. Given the choice, I think I'd rather retain this article's edit history, and delete that one. (Also noting that you were the creator of that article in June 2006, as well as the games article you cited.)- jc37 21:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i split off the content to allow the merge to go through much more smoothly and stop WLM from becoming excessive. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well at this point, to preserve the older edit history (GDFL concerns), I think we should support this article instead of the "history" one. I'm going to suggest that in the AfD discussion. (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Windows Live Messenger). And since, as you note in the AfD, the Windows Live article would be "too long" with this information added, I presume that you will no longer support the redirect. - jc37 22:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You presume wrong, this article just duplicates what can be done better split of and merged into the new article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Technically, as this is the older article, the other article duplicates this one. But anyway, I think I'll wait for the AfD to end, and then we can attempt to discuss this further. - jc37 22:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well since the results of: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Windows Live Messenger, was "delete", I think that eradicates your arguement about duplication. - jc37 06:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
After reading this a bit more, I don't understand... I don't support having this MSN Messenger article deleted; I was under the impression that a merge would result in this page becoming a redirect. If this was a redirect, the history of this page would still be preserved, wouldn't it? I don't understand your position on the duplication bit either -- the AfD votes are clear that there should not be duplication and I thought this was what Mr. Fenton was hoping to achieve by the merging of this article with the Windows Live Messenger article. I'm not clear on how the result of the AfD vote supports your position; to me it sounds like you view the WLM article to be a duplicate of this one, and that you would like the WLM content to be merged into here instead. Is that correct? Otherwise, how do you propose to have a Windows Live Messenger article that doesn't duplicate this one? I suggested below that the WLM article could be heavily edited so that there was no such duplication -- Although I am in favour of merging this article with the WLM article (as I believe that it would be easier to maintain a single page) I would fully support having two articles if the content of each is markedly different and is not duplicated (in both a logical and literal sense). I look forward to that happening soon. Alternatively, I would like to see your solution to this duplication problem (or why the current duplication isn't a problem). --59.167.104.199 14:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that User:Matthew Fenton created History of Windows Live Messenger, which was split from Windows Live Messenger (and was partially a duplication of this article). He then claimed that this article duplicated his history article, and wanted to make this one a redirect (even though this one predated it). Since then his new article has been deleted, per the AfD listed above, and which reaffirmed that this article should stand as it is. I do not believe that Windows Live Messenger or MSN Messenger should be merged (under either name). I hope that this clarifies. - jc37 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge - I think that since it's practically just a name change (still the same messenger, just with a few different things susceptible to version changes) and that MS didn't call it WLM 1.0, I think it should be merged. And for the person that said 8.0 is only meant for XP, 7.5 was also only meant for XP (except that you could edit the setup to run on win 2000). And if we're to go by your thinking, then why not split 7.5 from the rest of the versions since it doesn't run on Windows 98 anymore. SmartSped 07:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Object I think it's best to leave the MSN article to document the history of WLM. (Perhaps we could go as far as having Main article: MSN Messenger in a yet to be written history section of the WLM article. -- Selmo (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge - Its obviously the same product (note the analogous version numbers). Merging the two articles would also avoid confusion. Tryggvia 18:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. - I think that MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger are different products. I wouldn't say completely different but they are definitely not the same product. They have different names and Windows Live Messenger is a big update to MSN Messenger. Windows Live Messenger has a totally different GUI (unlike most previous versions of MSN Messenger - most of which shared an older, different GUI) and I agree with the comments that it would be like merging the Windows 3.1 article with Windows Vista article etc. Windows Live Messenger is big improvement and update to MSN Messenger and has lots more and newer features. MSN Messenger is the old historical version and Windows Live Messenger is newer, more recent (and cannot be used on < Windows XP). It seems sensible to keep them separate to me. The andyman 0 17:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge. - Microsoft: Now MSN Messenger, you will be called WLM. Newbie: wow it's new! 16@r 22:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge - Just as Windows Internet Explorer 7 was a MAJOR upgrade to Microsoft Internet Explorer 6, Windows Live Messenger 8.0 is a MAJOR upgrade to MSN Messenger 7.5 Proto Dude 05:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose The andyman 0 is right. MSN and Windows Live Messengers are different. Windows Live Messenger has a different user interface and and can't be used with the preseccessers of Windows XP. Salmans801

That does not make sense at all. First, you spelled predecessor wrong if that was what you were trying to spell. Second, IE 7 does not work on the predecessors of Windows XP either.Proto Dude 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

'Oppose Seems to be substantial amount of content for both. Cultural impact of product family is high. Joestella 15:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose as per many of arguments above, I would agree that the articles for Windows itself are an excellent example --Amxitsa 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I'm disputing this - I never liked it when it was redirected, and there is a lot of good seperate info for each article. And they are slightly different products as well. RN 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I obviously agree, (since I reverted the redirect). While the new version is apparently MSN messenger 8.0, I think it's comparable to the differences between windows 98 and windows 2000 (which each receive their own pages). - jc37 22:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Whaaaa? MSN Messenger 7.5 -> WLM 8.0 is nowhere near the scope of change from Windows 98 -> 2000. Have you noticed that the executable name for WLM is msnmsgr.exe and is installed in a directory called "MSN Messenger"? It's a new version of the same product, and save for the name change and a set of new features typical of a major version number upgrade, there's really no difference between the two. -/- Warren 23:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The name of the product is the same, and the name of the installation directory is the same..... k - Windows is called windows, and installs into a directory called Windows, whether you're talking 3.1 or MeĀ : )
But that aside, Win 95 and Win 98 also have their own articles. And further, both MSN Messenger and Win live articles have a large amount of different and varied information. No reason to have a single mile length article, when we already have a natural split (marketed name change). - jc37 01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages suggests that pages should be merged if "there are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap". Look at the current versions of both this MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger pages and spot the differences. What is the different and varied information? New content in the WLM article is just development information. If the article is too long, I would suggest splitting the page and moving the development information to a new page... Otherwise, following your argument, why aren't there different pages for MSN Messenger 1 to 7? In regards to Windows, Windows 98 article refers to new and updated features from Windows 95 - unless the Windows Live Messenger article is going to be drastically edited so that it follows that style and only gives information on the new features, then I think this and the WLM article should be merged. Otherwise, now we just have virtually duplicate information split on two very long pages; protocol, xbox live integration, games, applications, and criticism sections look pretty similar to me (i.e. most of the article). Also see the AOL Instant Messenger article - AIM has several different names and several different current versions on one page.--59.167.104.199 12:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, using your arguement, if we merged the article, we'd immediately have to split it, and this is a rather likely way it would be split, anyway. Also, in looking at both articles, I don't see the duplicate information you are referring to. - jc37 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Games and applications (on a separate page in the WLM article) is/should be duplicate for both articles (at least, currently they update both MSN and WLM with the same games and applications). XBox Live Integration section is/should be duplicate. Protocol is the same except WLM is up to version 14. Competition should be the same in both articles -- since WLM is an upgrade of MSN, it doesn't make much sense that there is different competition. The same goes for criticism; all of the criticism listed in the MSN Messenger article applies to WLM. Do you agree that these sections are/should be duplicate? I can see that only the development section and features section are different (as WLM developed new features). Do you agree that these are the only different sections?
As you mention, I do not oppose splitting the article eventually, but I believe the current articles are split in the wrong fashion (as so much information is or should be duplicate). Thus, I believe the article should be merged with WLM (or vice versa, I suppose) until a more appropriate version of either page is created or a better way of presenting the content is found.
If you (or others, of course) still disagree, then I suggest that -- for the time being -- the aforementioned sections should be edited for consistency (i.e. copy missing information from the MSN article to the WLM article). Then, I will propose changing the WLM article to link to the MSN article where information is identical.
I honestly appreciate your opinion thus far, and I would like your opinion on what course of action should be taken, if any.--59.167.104.199 02:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Simply redirecting doesn't make sense when the information haven't been removed, reverted. A merge is of course possible, or splitting in a different way, but I think that it must be noted on the WLM page, or that the information on the MSN Messenger page must be merged before the redirect. Lemmio 17:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This proposed merger has been listed at Proposed Mergers for greater community feedback. Luke! 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

People, please! There are about as many differences between Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 and Windows Internet Explorer 7, as there are between MSN Messenger 7.5 and Windows Live Messenger 8.0. So now what? By the same logic that the opposers use, we should make IE7 a separate article too? Proto Dude 05:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename to History of Windows Live Messenger

  • Support - Since this article is far too large to be merged into WLM, I recommend that this article be renamed (and only slightly modified) to History of Windows Live Messenger, as WLM is the direct successor to MSN Messenger. (It's part of the MSN rebranding to Live, successive version number, the old Windows Messenger is simply be retired, etc.) Craig R. Nielsen 02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check this out. (And the associated discussion.) - jc37 21:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article's gotta be renamed. Personally, I believe it should be merged, but there appears to be an overwhelming majority against this decision. At the moment it doesn't seem to acknowledge that Windows Live Messenger is simply the next version of MSN Messenger, but rather treats the two as completely separate programs. The fact that the infobox lists 7.5 as the latest release (as well as including the 7.5 logo and screenshot) confirms this. It's the same as if 6.0 was labelled the latest version of Microsoft Internet Explorer just because 7.0 was renamed Windows Internet Explorer. I suggest the article should be renamed and the infobox removed. --Tobz1000 01:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Impact?

MSN has been quite influential on culture, especially teenage culture in the UK (at least I notice it). Is there a place for a comment on this in this article? User:Saveourcity 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What kind of cultural impact? Is there documented support or hearsay? Luke! 23:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Move Protected

This page has been move-protected until discussion has concluded on whether or not this page should be moved to History of Windows Live Messenger. Discussion about this can be found here. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Freeware?

This is a freeware? AFAIK, most of microsoft software that are parts of windows operating system, for example, windows media player, they are distributed as if they are windows update components themself. According to the EULA, to install those windows updates, you must have a legal licensed copy of microsoft operating system. In other words, it allow you to install the updates only on a licensed copy of microsoft OS. As it is a part of windows update, so it shouldn't be called freeware? --203.190.250.105 06:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

MSN Messenger is not part of the Windows operating system, is not distributed via Windows Update, and does not require validation. Themodernizer 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep at current location, MSN Messenger. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

MSN Messenger ā†’ History of Windows Live Messenger ā€” Duplicate content from Windows Live Messenger. Themodernizer 02:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add Ā # '''Support'''Ā  or Ā # '''Oppose'''Ā  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

Survey - Oppose votes

  1. Oppose the premise above, per: 1.) the rather lengthy "no concensus" discussion above about the difference between MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger; 2.) The AfD, which resulted in a delete of History of Windows Live Messenger; 3.) The discussion above and the AfD have made it rather clear that this article wasn't duplicative of Windows Live Messenger, but of the previous History of Windows Live Messenger. (Which was a new created artcile, duplicating this one, presumably to side-step the merge/rename discussion, out-of-process.); 4.) Concerns about Themodernizer's POV in this discussion, based on the user's edit history (rather Microsoft-centric, among other concerns), and specifically that he reverted the template for the merge discussion, preferring to substitute a link to the now deleted History of Windows Live Messenger here and when Luckyluke reverted, this was his response. - jc37 10:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  1. In response to User:jc37's opposition: 1.) I think that "no consensus" should provoke further discussion such as this; 2.) The AfD was about duplication between MSN Messenger and History of Windows Live Messenger: this discussion is about renaming MSN Messenger to History of Windows Live Messenger; 3.) I don't think there was consensus on whether or not MSN Messenger was duplicative of Windows Live Messenger--for example, User:jc37 did not respond to this comment: "Games and applications (on a separate page in the WLM article) is/should be duplicate for both articles (at least, currently they update both MSN and WLM with the same games and applications). XBox Live Integration section is/should be duplicate. Protocol is the same except WLM is up to version 14. Competition should be the same in both articles -- since WLM is an upgrade of MSN, it doesn't make much sense that there is different competition. The same goes for criticism; all of the criticism listed in the MSN Messenger article applies to WLM. Do you agree that these sections are/should be duplicate? I can see that only the development section and features section are different (as WLM developed new features). Do you agree that these are the only different sections?"; and 4.) By definition, this discussion requires the point of view from various users, and I don't believe the article's neutrality is at stake (by renaming it). On the other hand, similiar to User:MatthewFenton's past actions with this article, I think User:Themodernizer's action in removing the template was inappropriate. 59.167.106.225 00:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. I removed the template because at the time of removal, I had already moved the article MSN Messenger to History of Windows Live Messenger. Themodernizer 00:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vendor lock-in?

Do you think Messenger contributes to Vendor lock-in? Would it help to have a category identifying Category:Non-interoperable systems? The issue is being voted on, please contribute your vote / opinion: here. Pgr94 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Why is there a link to enttwist (whatever that is) and not to messenger.msn.com? That site seems completely irrelevant. ā€”The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.194.74.215 (talk) 14:14, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, seems like personal[8] ads. 62.194.74.215 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Msnmessenger-logonscreen-xp.png

Image:Msnmessenger-logonscreen-xp.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MSN-Messenger-(logo).png

Image:MSN-Messenger-(logo).png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

emoticons/games

i too think they're should be a list, I'll try and make one, but bare with me cos i am new to wikipedia and don't know that much like doing stuff like grids, I'll test it out in the sand box

Pop-up ad attacks

I'm pretty sure there was this thing some years ago in old MSN Messengers that they allowed third parties to open web pages to your screen without asking, resulting in annoying ad popups; any info on this? They were not viruses as such, but rather maybe something adware etc? --Sigmundur 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move. Dujaā–ŗ 07:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

MSN Messenger ā†’ History of Windows Live Messenger ā€” MSN Messenger is the former name of Windows Live Messenger. Therefore, this is an article about the history of Windows Live Messenger and its name should reflect this. ā€”Themodernizer 23:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Cleanup

This article is in desperate need of clean-up. The last couple of sections here seem like a haven to anyone who has an axe to grind as there is an utter lack of citations which meet WP:V. Blogs, forums, personal websites, etc don't remotely conform.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Next time you're on MSN tell your friend to link you to his favourite Youtube video. Just because it isn't cited doesn't mean it's not true. Bactoid (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability and not truth. An editor testing this out and adding it to the article is the very definition of original research.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well it certainly did happen and I could definitely see why Microsoft would want to keep this blunder of theirs as quiet as possible. Bactoid (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Filtering "controversy"

I notice there still have not been any reliable sources provided for this. The simple fact of calling it a controversy causes NPOV issues. Unless someone can provide some reliable sources to back this text, I'll cull it.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No original research blah blah yeh, but anyway, any message with "http://www.CheckMessenger.net" in it seems to never reach the target either. 83.67.39.175 (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Enough citations are now present for the filtering section. It's no longer WP:OR - xpclient Talk 08:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Blogs and forums posts fail WP:V and none of those are valid sources to support the text. Anyone can create those and they are not reliable. Any conclusions and theories put forth from unreliable sources are essentially original research as the editor using them is trying to put forth a theory or draw a conclusion for which proper sources are not present--221.143.25.19 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be there. Microsoft are taking a fascist approach to this, and what has happened is based in fact (the easiest way to prove that the filtering still occurs is to send a link through msn that starts with http:// and ends in zip and is long enough that msn has a cry). There is speculation that this is a sign of more to come (remniscent of tcpa which also has controversy surrounding it), and it would be irresponsible of wikipedia to not record it as a historical truth, in order to demonstrate total neutrality 122.57.235.233 (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What the hell?! Who removed this? Microsoft is still censoring links on MSN. Just try sending a link This HAS to be mentioned here! Just try it yourselves: They censor every link ending with download.php or links from *.ath.cx unimatrix (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Version info

When were "personal messages" added? I can't find such info in either this page, Microsoft Notification Protocol, or Windows Live Messenger. 200.68.94.105 (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

.NET failures

I feel this article is in need of a list regarding few failers of the .NET service that has led oh so many users to anger. Atleast a list or history would be nice.24.22.221.229 (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

wank ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.190.130 (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Shutting down?

This story from BBC reports that Windows Live will be terminated on November 2nd. I haven't seen anything about it anywhere else, so I'm really confused. Can anyone verify this? OneGyT/T|C 04:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I missed that. Good grief. /facepalm on myself OneGyT/T|C 14:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

MSN Messenger

Considering this client is still required for Windows '95, '98, 2000 and Me users, surely there should still be a separate page rather than merging the two articles into one called "Windows Live Messenger"? I have just loaded live and still have MSN and Live MSN in my programs directory. Should MSN be deleted or can I leave both MSN and Live MSN there?

this is not a forum for general discussion. But FYI: there is no requirement to have any Messenger. You can delete one Messenger and the other should still work. --Waqas1987 (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mac

I realize this probably doesn't belong here... but, has anybody been having problems with MSN Messenger for Mac since last night? i have been trying all day to download it again and as the download is about to finish my safari closes down and the download ends up incomplete... It could belong in the article if it's a widespread problem... if anyone has been having these problems or knows how to fix this I would like to know

Thank You --ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernestato (talk ā€¢ contribs)

Mac and Windows are differnt. Doesnt belong here. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

License

Isn't Windows Live Messenger adware because it is ad-supported (like MSN Messenger)? The bottom of the main window has a small graphical banner, and the bottom of every conversation window has a single line text ad. Wilson 05:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what I would have thought, but it seems ad-ware is now a term only used for software whose only purpose is serving ads. Dictionary.com and even Wikipedia think otherwise. 03:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
It is ad-supported software. --Happynoodle 15:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this article needs a rewrite. Currently it looks like promotional material. - Sikon 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks as if it's been taken from a Microsoft website... --86.136.161.207 14:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Voting is evil Matthew Fenton (contribs) 12:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
adware in my opinion, DEFINITLY NOT shareware. this should be changed HuGo_87 (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I dont know how to edit the fact box. This should be added: "License: Proprietary adware" Just like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Messenger ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.15.44 (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Version History

Any chance of adding this, like the list for Windows Vista? mysterious_w

I'm assuming you're refering to "Summary of builds" in the Windows Vista article? .. personally, I think that's a little excess, but I suppose that this could be added in a sperate article for Windows Live Messenger. Would you be interested in adding this? -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 13:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Distribution

There is no need for this anymore - windows live messenger is now in public beta Tomba 02:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That is an incorrect statement. Open, public beta would allow anyone to download the beta, like Windows Defender. The beta is opened to invited users only, whether by other testers or Microsoft itself. Kyle 15:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Haha. and you want to be "in charge" of this page. You need to stop giving false information than. mess.be and msgshit.com both clearly indicate that WLM is in public beta now. you just need to sign into your .net passport, and anyone can use it. --razorwave 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it doesn't matter what either of these pages have said...Microsoft itself has not declared the Messenger to be in open beta. Kyle 15:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Should the article be restructured and improved?

I am currently beta testing Windows Live Messenger. I have tested most of the current features. I could add a lot of content. Should I redo the article myself? Input welcome! If there's anything you want in the article, let me know! Kyle 16:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Kyle, you seem to be very new to Wikipedia. Nobody owns or is responsible for an article. So if somebody thinks that a change is to be made (and is appropriate), they will very well make it themselves. In the end, the basic idea is that it is as useful as possible to whoever comes across the page. As far as possible, you do not remove information/pictures as long as it is NOT INACCURATE; you just ADD to it. While you have included some very useful information, you keep removing others which are very well useful to the general public. This is considered not to be in the true spirit of Wikipedia. Please don't take this the wrong way.
Wouldn't releasing information on how to circumvent the authorization be considered illegal? Kyle 15:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say so, but I'm not sure. It's not much of an issue now anyway, seeing as Microsoft have produced a "universal invitation" in which anyone and everyone can sign up from. ā€” FireFox ā€¢ T [15:17, 3 April 2006]

Ability to choose color scheme

...Unless I am completely missing some difference, this features is also available in its predecessor, version 7.5 Abhorreo 22:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember myself, it's been such a long time since I used 7.5. I'm sure the ability to change the colour is available for the conversation window, but I'm not sure it was there for the contact list. ā€” FireFox ā€¢ T [09:47, 4 April 2006]
Sorry, I made a mistake, I didn't differentiate in between the ability to change the color for just the chat , and the contact list. I did a partial revert to the old version, and added what part of the feature is new. Abhorreo 10:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I use MSN messenger 7.0 and you can change the colour scheme for the conversation window so I presume that you can do it in MSN messenger 7.5

Audio and Video

How about some information about the audio and video conferencing with WLM from those who have used the beta version or know? Gary 03:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've used WLM, and the features are like MSN 7.5 but a little nicer and a whole lot buggier.--Delta Elite 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

PC to Phone feature

I would like to see much more information about this feature, its currently described very briefly. There should be some information about:

1- the actual name of the feature "Windows Live Phone Call" 2- the fact that this feature is powered by Verizon 3- some information on the fact that people needs to register at verizon.com before using it

Eshcorp 14:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please put the info in. --soUmyaSch 14:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What is this? A gossip column?

"This name change, though subtle, may raise some difficulties. Over the years, the now defunct MSN Messenger has earned the internet slang and colloquial nickname of simply MSN. Often, when users of the product would say "Are you going on MSN tonight?", they were referring specifically to MSN Messenger, rather than the entire MSN network. With the introduction of Windows Live Messenger, it is uncertain as to whether the now inapplicable slang term "MSN" will remain among users. It may be assumed that the abbreviation given to Live Messenger, "WLM", will not catch on as the letter "W" has three syllables and is thus too lengthy. Alternatively, the letter "W" could be pronouced as "dub" to shorten the whole phrase to be pronounced as "dub-el-em"."

That whole paragraph was torture. Should definetly be changed.

Agreed. I shall remove it. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 09:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This is common in the United Kingdom, though. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 19:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
What is common?--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
What the paragraph is saying is that in the UK at least, MSN Messenger is usually colloquially called just "MSN" rather than "Messenger". Thus, by removing any mention of the term "MSN", the paragraph is questioning whether this term will remain in common parlance.Bob 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Same in Canada as far as calling it "MSN" goes. I think this paragraph should be put back in -- a well-rounded encyclopedia article, IMO, should include not only technical information, but also the social aspects of the topic. Your thoughts? --Jvd897 12:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Same in argentina, we also call it just "MSN" HuGo_87 (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
(Except for the last line "dub-el-em". Utter nonsense.) --Jvd897 12:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe.. But i think it needs a slight rewrite. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 13:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Very true. For the sake of diversity, I'll let someone else do that; perhaps you'd like to, Mr. Fenton. --Jvd897 18:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots

I have taken them of the login, chat window and colour picker. iIf anyone cares to do the other two please feel free to do so, If not i shall do them tommorow. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a screenshot of the main screen Cabe6403 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
We should realy provide screenshots WITHOUT "plus!", so as to show what it looks like un-modified. Not THAT much diference, yet, it's still not the same. ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo 87 (talk ā€¢ contribs) 14:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

section: History of Messenger split into new article (entitled: History of MSN Messenger)

I propose that it be split into its own article as the page is now pretty large, and as a rebranding has happend i believe that it would be more suited to its own article. Please comment below. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 20:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. ā€” FireFox 20:35, 21 June '06
Me too, go for it. Warrens 21:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Completed. Page can now be viewed at History of MSN Messenger (also added a link to See also) Good night. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 21:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also merged games and Apps into there own article. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 17:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing information / comments

  • The history section is blank; per the Manual of Style, we should have some text here summarising the history of the Messenger product.
  • The Features section only covers features new to version 8 of the product. This doesn't give an accurate description of the entire product, so this needs some significant expansion.
  • When referring to something that could apply to both "MSN Messenger" and "Windows Live Messenger", we probably should just refer to the product as simply "Messenger". Specific versions should still be denoted with their full name, e.g. MSN Messenger 7.0. This name change is going to cause a lot of confusion over the next year or two, so we should do our best to present this as clearly and accurately as possible.
  • Is there any news of releasing Msn Messenger Live for other versions of Windows?

Matthew Fenton is not letting me add a link to the MessUnit (http://messunit.com) unnoficcial Windows Live Messenger blog to the Windows Live Messenger page, he claims that im "link spamming" but it's only one site and its much more relevant than several of the other external links, I asked that if he was going to remove my link he should atleast be consistent and remove the link to the Hypothetic MSN Protocol site, because I know for a fact that that site only covers the much older MSN Messenger protocols and hasn't been updated for about 2 years!!! There are also links to several other unofficial sites like Mess.be and MSNPiki - both of which are sites for MSN Messenger and not Windows Live Messenger. This is clearly a case of favoritism. He is enforcing rules that don't exist, and if they do exist hes only enforcing them on the sites he dosn't like.

I am new to Wikipedia and I would appreciate your help. O-B-Trice

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia... I reviewed the blog you want to add a link to, and have decided to remove it. It doesn't pass Wikipedia's requirements for notability of web sites. Also, it's a blog that you yourself write ā€“ you'll find that there is a lot of resistance to people attempting to promote their own web sites here; we aren't an advertising service, blog directory, or a repository of arbitrary external links. We're an encyclopedia. There are plenty of good places on the Internet to promote your stuff, but this just isn't one of them. If you would like to help out Wikipedia by contributing materially to the encyclopedia itself, however, that would be great! Warrens 07:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I shall paste here what you removed from your talk page.

Your links fail WP:WEB and are non notable, your links also provide no significance to the article where as MSNPiki and Hypothetic do and they are notable (even tho hypothetic is outdated MSNP9/10 still work) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
People like you should not be using Wiki. The documentation does not cover the more complex aspects of MSNP9 nor MSNP10, I am knowledgable in that field. A blog directly relating to Windows Live Messeger is certainly relevant. I'm re-adding the blog link once again and If you remove it I will request arbitration.
I probably have more knowledge in the field than you do having worked with: MSNP8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 also major experiance in P4P (DPs, CEs, Ink and MSN Games) and also the SSL. Your links have no value in the article, if such links where to be included it would be notable websites that people frequent like mess.be.
The fact is your links are non-notable, however hypothetic is still widely used (even though outdated) as well as msnpiki and both are notable and serve a purpose, your links fail WP:WEB plus you are self promoting. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It is unlikely that you have more knowledge than me in that field, but thats not the point - The point is that Hypothetic is an out-dated site which documents the older protocols which are only used by the MSN Messenger client - not WLM. The MsnPiki is a blatent rip of Hypothetic with almost no real information on the newer protocols - MSNP12 / MSNP13 / MSNP14. Anyway it dosn't matter now.. All unofficial links have been removed and I'm happy with that outcome. Your efforts to control the Windows Live Messenger page have failed. O-B-Trice
To tell you the truth i am not botherd about protocol documentation being removed as i was apprehensive about having it there in the first place, also it is most likely i do have more knowledge in the field then you. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Due to recent edits I have protected this page from editing. Placing copyright images in a gallery is not fair use. They must be used to assist critical commentary. ed g2s ā€¢ talk 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as Matthew or anyone else does not intend to restore the gallery, I would like to unprotect the page as soon as possible. ed g2s ā€¢ talk 21:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with the gallery may I ask? - Mike Beckham 21:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The images are under fair use liscense, using them in a gallery is not fair use, it is a copyright violation, as the images for fair use have to contribute significantly to the text they are accompaneing, these images did not accompany any text. Philc TECI 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, why are you protecting a page on which you are involved in an edit dispute? This is expressly prohibited per Wikipedia's policy on protecting pages as stated in Wikipedia:List of protected pages. That's not how we resolve disputes on Wikipedia. Matthew Fenton is a good, trustworthy editor and he'll listen to any reasoned argument put forward on the talk page, which wasn't done until after page protection took place. -/- Warren 22:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Warren, I did ask him to communicate on the talk page he however refused. I do however think Eds reign is coming to an end as he gets into to many disputes ad frequentley abuses power. I intend to ask him to stand down, if he does not wish to then it may have to go to arbitration. However i am unsure of this as i have never brought anything to arbitration before. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This was a copyright issue, not a content dispute, so it was entirely appropriate to protect a legally "safe" version of the page. Matthew has heard these arguments before yet continues to start edit wars and behave in a childish manner, calling all around him vandals. ed g2s ā€¢ talk 22:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It clearly was vandalism, you were asked to converse. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
See what I mean... ed g2s ā€¢ talk 22:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
No i fail to see what you mean, sorry. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I didnt weant to involve myself in this but edit summarries such as (ā†’Gallery - these screenshots do not justify themselves. only use when the subject of the text) and (rv. see comments. screenshots not fair use in gallery.) do not constitute as blatant vandalism. Philc TECI 22:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The summarys are not in question, he was blanking sections. he was asked to converse, but refused (Also the vandalism warning is a pre-built in summary). Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You said it was clearly vandalism, stop changing the point to defend yourself. The fact was it wasnt clearly vandalism. Philc TECI 22:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor did I refuse to converse. I left edit summaries and messages on your talk page. ed g2s ā€¢ talk 22:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, message received, you two don't like eachother. I humbly suggest an approach of mutual avoidance to keep stress levels down. This name-calling doesn't get the encyclopedia written. But for your own sake, ed g2s, don't call unnecessary trouble upon yourself by using page protection tools on a page you are otherwise editing for content concerns. The protection policy is very specific in stating that you, as an administrator, should contact another uninvolved administrator to protect pages if it's needed. We need you to set a good example as an administrator by following these policies precisely. Thanks. -/- Warren 22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It may have been a bit soon to protect the page, but I can see Matthew makes some useful contributions, so I was reluctant to draw him into making more reverts and getting him blocked. ed g2s ā€¢ talk 23:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough... thanks for helping out with the article; we do indeed have to be very careful about how we use screenshots of copyrighted software. -/- Warren 00:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit more criticism... has anyone else noticed?

Has anyone else noticed the complete lack of Aero support in WLM? I used WLM Beta for the longest time in XP, and the interface was 100x nicer than Luna (after using A-Patch to remove the ads). But now I'm the Windows Vista CPP, with Aero looking wicked cool, but leaves WLM looking archaic in comparison. It would be very nice if WLM supported the same glass effects that other MS external programs use (like Windows Media Player). I mention this here because I'm not sure if it's article material, especially if I'm the only one complaining. --ZeromaruTC 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is pretty fugly, isn't it. I wouldn't be surprised if the next release of WLM is more Aero-friendly. Vista's release is still four months away, so they've still got time to take care of this.... in the meantime, leave them feedback on their blog or something, make sure they've heard this. -/- Warren 00:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
As per warren i wouldnt be suprised if the next release is aero freindly as it gets closer to vistas release. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In the criticisum catagory, there seems to be something of a huge bug that's denying access and even making contacts vanish with the "Public" version of WLM. The doods say they're doing something about it, but they could of warned us BEFORE the thing went live? --Conan-san 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, several people including me have had their contacts list "vanish" as you put it when using WLM. Not only that, but trying to add contacts makes them appear offline, but still able to be messaged. We arn't sure whats going on but only thing we can think of is it happenes to people not having a hotmail adress. --OAM

This is now not so, current version uses aero, though it could do better. Should we drop this section? HuGo_87 (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

is there any technical info known yet

about how the msn-yahoo link works and how hard it will be for third party clients to support the feature? Plugwash 20:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding link to explain all of that70.101.201.248 18:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Censorship controversy

When i use any of these words (ie. download.php) in my messages nothing happens? The window does not close and the message goes though (contact confirmed this). I assume this statment is incorrect. - Lynxy - #T #C #M 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Previous versions censored text, its possible this was removed. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Could that be affected by the fact that "dangerous files" can be sent to contacts now? --JD[don't talk|email] 17:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where the window closing idea comes from, but it has never been like this, probably just misinterpreted. I have modified it a little bit, please check it all makes sense, me engrish bad. --203.211.77.226 08:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Censorship appears to be happening for all sites that end with .info and starts with http:// or www. If you try to send such a message, it does not send correctly. ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.203.72 (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to merge the part of this article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_Messenger#Filtering_controversy I have verified it and both MediaFire and eBuddy are still filtered. 219.90.167.128 (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Noticed today that all messages containing a domain ending in ath.cx (used by Dyndns) are blocked. It must also have "http://" in front. So http://ath.cx is blocked; thisisatest.ath.cx is not blocked; http://thisisatest.ath.cx is blocked. --Greycellgreen (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Scrolling

I think the most constructive upgrade/improvement of Windows Live MEssenger in comparison to the older stuff is the fact that you can scroll in a message window without returning to the last received message everytime the person sends you a message! This makes it much easier to browse the previous conversations or whatever... and I think it's a very noteworthy piece of information to have in the main article... someone? --Scotteh 17:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what, i've never thought about that and yes it is a noteworthy piece of infoĀ ;-)! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

whats the oldest windows version

that can run an official client thats up to date enough to still connect to the network? Plugwash 02:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I ran something like version 1.0 last year. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk ā€¢ contribs) 07:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

does anyone have any evidence of "windows live messenger" being used for the service (as apposed to the client)

clearly MS doesn't use the term this way (the service is known as the .net messenger service by them) and i don't think i've heared the term used at all outside of reffering specifically to the latest version of the official client. "msn" and "msn messenger" on the other hand are frequently used to reffer to the service rather than the client. Plugwash 01:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WLM

I don't believe that WLM is correct. It wasn't like that in the article originally and MSN Messenger wasn't abbreviated MSNM and I've never seen WLM being used anywhere else. 149.135.50.153 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What part of "Windows Live Messenger" is unclear? It's a frequently used acronym/abbreviation for the software, including the version number (WLM 8.0.0689.00_Branches). Leave the acronym alone. ju66l3r 05:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Try googling for "wlm messenger". Somehow Google knows that WLM means Windows Live Messenger... if you look at the results, it's clear as day as to why: WLM is quickly becoming the de-facto acronym used by people who use the software. Stating a commonly-used acronym is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia articles; we do it on Windows 2000 to identify "Win2k" as a short-form of the name of that operating system, even though Microsoft doesn't use that terminology at all. We don't need Microsoft's blessing to make acronyms. -/- Warren 05:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If Microsoft doesn't use the term it shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia, therefore I'm removing it. 149.135.50.153 05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh really now. And what policy or guidelines supports that view? -/- Warren 05:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Windows Media Player article doesn't mention (WMP) even though I've seen it used countless times. Why should we use WLM here? 149.135.50.153 05:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a logical fallacy...nobody said the WMP article was perfect. In fact, you're right, WMP is a common acronym for Windows Media Player, good catch. I added it there to make up for the fact that it should have been there as well. Thanks. ju66l3r 05:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. Is that because you've come to the realisation that there is no Wikipedia policy which supports your view? I hope so; perhaps it'll also mean you'll quit wasting your time with this pointless crusade. Just leave it alone, and contribute something useful to the encyclopedia instead. -/- Warren 05:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Canadian English = realization not realisation. 149.135.50.153 06:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is clear that your evading your block as well now. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk ā€¢ contribs) 07:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"WLM" is used on the Windows Live Messenger blog, so I think that counts as being used by Microsoft. You've gotta go back a bit, November 2005 or so, but it is used by them. J Ditalk 13:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WLM is also used for Windows Live Mail and possible any other product in the Windows Live range starting with "M". WLM is not an official acronym for Windows Live Messenger. It should not be used in an encylopedia as it is internet-slang, nothing more. ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.253.16 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Build 0812

Does anyone have any idea what's new in this build? I noticed the service would go down for along time quite often before. I hope this fixes itĀ :)

Check out a messenger website like mess.be, you probably wont find information here till the offical beta is out (is it?) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Windows Mobile?

The article states that WLM is available for Windows Mobile. Would anyone be so kind as to give the link to it, as I can not find it. Thanks, Janipewter 14:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • WLM is not available for Windows Mobile. It's still called "MSN Messenger", and it is not downloadable. It is built-in to the OS. If your PDA does not have it built in, then I guess you will not be able to use it. In Windows Mobile 5.0, MSN Messenger is part of a suite called "Pocket MSN", accessible from the Today screen.

17 Percent of the Chinese market?

"Up to now, MSN Messenger has taken about 17 percent of the Chinese market, a figure which is becoming increasingly larger." - there is no source, or specific date attached to this claim. Is it an estimation? Is it an official number pushed from Microsoft? It doesn't say, and as such the figure's bias is questionable. This reference should either be attached to a reliable reference - changed to say "Some estimates..." or removed entirely.

Also, is the figure really becoming larger due to a higher proportion of the Chinese market using the service over competitors - or because a higher proportion are now accessing the internet from home?

61.69.3.10 09:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Contributor

WLM 8.1 Public Beta

Just released, available at [9] --Grand Edgemaster Talk 00:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

More criticism

Some features (e.g. Sharing Folders) work only if the user is in specific country. I think that's pretty f***ed up and should be added to the article. Doc17 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It also requires you use NTFS on your primary hard drive, or it won't enable folder sharing. This too should be noted HuGo_87 (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Competition section

In the Competition section of the article, Gaim is listed as a competitor. Gaim is a competing client, but it still connects to the same service. AIM and ICQ are completely different services. Shouldn't a distinction be made? ā€” JeremyTalk 04:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that and I agree mate. Troubleshooter 16:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

COLOR FROM BACKGROUND

another new feature is that a color is automatically chosen from a background you set. i knew another new function, but forgot it^^ maybe later... ā€”The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.139.82.82 (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

other new functions

now you can enter your login-data at the start of the messener, and you can edit the sounds of incoming messages, etc. in teh options menu. ā€”The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.139.82.82 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Sharing folders?

Any explanation of how the "Sharing Folders" work? The files are uploaded to MSN, hopefully stored securely, and wait to be downloaded? It might also be mentioned that it isn't an exact mirror. If I share file.doc with you, and you erase it, my copy is not erased. - TheMightyQuill 22:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Final

Was released yesterday (29th). Don't think it was downloadable until early this morning from the official WLM site.

Check out http://www.msgshit.com for where I got it. - JimmyK 08:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vendor lock-in?

Do you think Messenger contributes to Vendor lock-in? Would it help to have a category identifying Category:Non-interoperable systems? The issue is being voted on, please contribute your vote / opinion: here. Pgr94 23:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It does as far as the service goes, but not completly as far as client goes. There are alternative clients, though microsoft doesn't open up the protocol, so the software lock-in is arguable. They do contribute IMO HuGo_87 (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Renamed 'Features' to 'Features new to Windows Live Messenger'

Since the article is written from the view that Windows Live Messenger supersedes MSN Messenger, there is no need to restate the features of MSN Messenger in this article. Thus I have removed some content that already appears in either the MSN Messenger article or the Games and applications for Windows Live Messenger article.59.167.107.105 06:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm

I found someone wrote an article about I'mļ¼Œ I think this should be expanded and mentioned in Windows Live Messenger. --Littlebtc 13:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

title

If the common title is indeed MSN or MSN Messenger, it should be there due to the policy of using the most common name, right? 11:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WEB SITE TROUBLE!!

Ever checked the link given in the article to download the software? MS must have a huge problem at the moment. Absolutely nothing there, no elements (pull-down menus etc.). And no way to download the thing. I have recently sent the software to friends privately, as the MS site is so broken!! -andy 91.32.87.188 16:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The website (in the infobox) works fine. Just to be sure it's http://get.live.com/messenger Swanny92 06:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You did not read to the end, did you? The website quoted in the infobox is actually http://get.live.com/messenger/overview!! And this is the very problem: neither /overview nor /features works in my IE7 on Windows XP or 2003! Got it now? -andy 91.32.72.236 16:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've checked the site in the infobox on both IE7 and Firefox on Windows XP and they both work fine for me. Sorry, the site I typed down before, I didn't realise that get.live.com/messenger goes to a different site, compared to get.live.com/messenger/overview. I think it's safe to say that it is your problem that it doesn't work for you, as it works fine for me. Also, please cut out with the attitude next time you go to a discussion page. If you want a solution, I suggest trying out Mozilla Firefox. Swanny92 02:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Change on the way of displaying numbers in the inbox in version 8.1

I've updated recently to 8.1. However I've found a subtle change that I can't find documented anywhere. Next to the e-mail button on the main windows used to be a (0) when I didn't have messages. Now it has disappeared and I only have (1), (2), ... but not (0). On "Windows live messenger colour picker.png" you can see that there is no (0). Do you know if they changed this or it is due to some kind of misconfiguration on my computer? Thanks!

Yeah it's meant to be that way. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll add it into the article. Swanny92 05:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Orange Messenger by Windows Live

Do we have anything on this product yet? ACBestMy ContributionsAutograph Book 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MSN Messenger have URI like Aim and Yahoo?

I was wondering if anywhere there was a Windows Live Messenger like the Yahoo and AIM services currently have.

URI scheme

AOL Instant Messenger's installation process automatically installs an extra URI scheme ("protocol") handler into some web browsers, so that URIs beginning "aim:" can open a new AIM window with specified parameters. This is similar in function to the mailto: URI scheme, which creates a new e-mail message using the system's default mail program. For instance, a web page might include a link like the following in its HTML source to open a window for sending a message to the AIM user notarealuser: <a href="aim:goim?screenname=notarealuser">Send Message</a>

To specify a message body, the message parameter is used, so that the link location might look like this: aim:goim?screenname=notarealuser&message=This+is+my+message

To specify an away message, the message parameter is used, so that the link location might look like this: aim:goaway?message=Hello, my name is Bill When placing this inside a URL link, an AIM user could click on the URL link and the away message "Hello, my name is Bill" would instantly become their away message.

In addition, these can be placed and used within AIM.

[[10]] Link to the above

GamerzRepublic 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC) GamerzRepublic


--- There was a feature like that in the past version (aka MSN Messenger). There might add it again for WLHotmail. User:Amrykid

Can't sign in

Every time I try to sign in to WLM, I put in the correct password, but when I click the "sign in" button, it changes my password to an incorrect one (I notice this because an extra asterisk is automatically added to my password) and then says that it cannot verify my "account permissions." Is there any way to fix this problem? I tried to fix it by changing my password, but it continued. I then uninstalled it and then installed it again, but the problem still persisted. If this doesn't work out, I think I'll just give up and switch to AIM.--71.107.137.171 21:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

yea the same thing is happening to me ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.113.71 (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Try using ur username and password and sign in to http://account.live.com . See if that works. --Pikablu0530 23:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
WLM always shows the same number of asterisks when you click log-in. It does the same when you open WLM, and the password is saved, This is done to avoid others from SEEING the amout of characters it has. I belive it always shows 8 asterisks, though this should be confirmed. HuGo_87 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently I have the same problem. As everyone else who used 7.5 had, I got told I needed to upgrade, but when I did, it got to the end of the download and wouldn't work. When I finally got it to work, I tried to log in, and had the same problem. The third time I re-downloaded it, it said I needed to also upgrade from Windows Live. Keeping in mind that I haven't been able to use Windows Live for months now, since gettin that virus that was mentioned in the article. I've tried re-d/l'ing it off a number of sites and links, and each time it either gets to the end and stops, syaing it doesn't have authentification or something, or finishes, only to not let me log in, or say I need to upgrade again. Help? Taker04 12:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Taker

One common cause for this is that the computer time differs too much from real time. I don't know why Messnger can't report this, instead just saying: "Can't connect". ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.139.252.215 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference for Akonix statistics on number of Messenger threats?

The article says:

According to IM security researchers at Akonix, the number of new threats identified each month is 30 to 35, with a high of 88 in October, 2006

Is there some link to the source where this statistics was acquired from? I'm just curious about how fresh it is, and thus how reliable the high of 88 is (might have been surpassed in the recent year).

--212.16.103.33 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry -- I'll get that citation put in ASAP. Here on the talk page, I can tell you that it's always fresh, the up-to-date list of IM threats (including the ability to sort by which network, e.g. MSN, AOL, etc.) is available at www.imsecuritycenter.com. Akonix is the sponsor, but the IM Security Center is a collaborative effort in the industry, and acts as a clearinghouse for the security firms like Secunia, Sophos, Trend Micro, CA, Symantec, etc. I'm a regular contributor to Wikipedia, and keep the research and references up to date on my topics.
-DKM- 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Live Messenger Window.png

Image:Windows Live Messenger Window.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The aptly named Appearing Offline

Hello

This is more of a question about MSN Windows Live Messenger, Does anyone know if such a way exsists to see if someone is appearing offline? It'd be great if someone could reply on my discussion page please.

Thanks in advance

Police,Mad,Jack ā€”Preceding comment was added at 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

for questions like this you should ask Yahoo! Answers, this is a page to do with the software itself. but as far as I can tell, no. Chocobogamer (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

emesene

I added the client emesene to the list of compatible clients. Just my opinion, but I think it is the best (though not the most feature rich) WLM client for Linux. It's programmed in Python, so it's cross platform. At least to platforms with Python libraries. --NoobixCube (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WLM 9.0

Why did someone delete my WLM 9.0 picture? Please answer, whoever did this. ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfTheXP (talk ā€¢ contribs) 23:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It was East 718 according to the logs. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Windows-Live-Messenger-9_0.png 68.145.165.45 (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Anonymous

Privacy

What about privacy? Does Messenger store/log chats on a server or are messages sent through a DCC directly from one person to another? 71.112.198.228 (talk)

the white box

under a display picture...anyone know anything about it? is it worth mentioning on the main page? chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just a network bug or something, nothing of a big deal at the moment. Swanny92 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

add-ons/mods

Wikipedia isn't a link repository, or a number of other things. The current third party section was just a repository of links and nothing further. If third party applications are truly a notable aspect of Windows Live Messenger, some evidence should be given to support that and a section discussing modding should be added, not simply a repository to some editors choice of sites.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

FAIL

More than one year ago, someone made a contribution with the edit summar "Stop. Windows Messenger must be linked!!!!Ā¤Ā¤!)"... A registered account responded with "nope", and now 2 years later, someone has linked to Windows Messenger like it should be. Very odd indeed, but I assume this is common sense on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is like a battlefield of information. 213.89.174.233 (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Adware

Windows live messenger has adware in it, so why is there no mention of this in the article? The adware being at the bottom of the main messenger window and in the bottom right hand corner of the Windows Live Today. ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.93.156 (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be significant proof that can address the unknown fact that you have stated. If you can cite a reference, you're good to go. And also, care to explain how Windows Live Messenger is considered Adware. (Please tell me from the perspective from the stable version of Windows Live Messenger, not its beta.)--AOL Alex (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
"ad-ware is any software package which automatically plays, displays, or downloads advertisements to a computer after the software is installed on it or while the application is being used" (source: Adware) The screenshot shows that WLM displays advertisments. There is little to be argued about this. HuGo_87 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Adware and advertising-supported programs are NOT the same thing. ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by Einar414 (talk ā€¢ contribs) 09:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

MSN Messenger should be merged into Windows Live Messenger.

REASONS:

  • They are the same piece of software; the same thing. There was a name change in 2006; that's it.
    • There is just one Hotmail article (as opposed to both "MSN Hotmail" and "Windows Live Hotmail").
    • There is just one Live Search article (as opposed to both "MSN Search" and "Live Search").
    • There is just one Microsoft Word article (as opposed to both "Microsoft Word" and "Microsoft Office Word").
  • Most sections of the MSN Messenger article, such as "Protocol," "Games and Applications," and "Malware," are straight copies of the same exact sections in the Windows Live Messenger article.
  • The entire version history of MSN Messenger is just 5.5 kilobytes long. It would not be too much to include in the Windows Live Messenger article.

--Samvscat (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support It's surprising that it's taken this long, actually. The two articles talk about the exact same product, just with different branding. Each one's history is also the other's history, and there don't seem to be any conflicts that would arise from combining the two. --Resplendent (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Support I agree it shoould be Merged. Just as long as it done properly with keeping history of old with progres of new one. ā€”Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueking12 (talk ā€¢ contribs) 18:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Support Been thinking of this for a long time. --Pudeoāŗ® 11:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I merged it. Looks good to me. Here's hoping someone doesn't come along and revert the whole thing in one fell swoop without checking this discussion. --Samvscat (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


MSN Messenger is totally different than Windows Live Messenger. The MSN Messenger is a history article. So, please it should be reverted to its original form. A.h. king (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The entire contents of the old MSN Messenger article are already in the Windows Live Messenger article. To have 2 separate articles is completely redundant and unnecessary. See discussion and consensus above. --Samvscat (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Too Many Sections

I think the History section really should be condensed down to how it was previously. Having so many short sections for each version adds unnecessary complexity to the page. --Resplendent (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

14.0.8050.1202 is not beta

I have edited the info box, since the lastest version, released mid-December 2008 IS NOT a beta release, but a final release. I will shortly upload a new image for the talk window and the main window. --AllanVS talk contribs 06:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Atleast the download page says so to me atleast. And if I've understood it correctly, it's a release candidate 1, so it could be the final version, but if they deem it's not fit there will be a release candidate 2 and a final version. --Pudeoāŗ® 12:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Check the Help section. If it was a Beta, it would say "About this Beta Release" or somthing like that, and when you checked the "About Messenger" it would should BETA in the info. It is the final release. AllanVS talk contribs 00:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
no, the guy saying release candidate is correct. the release candidates they start stripping the software of beta tags as it is stable enough for general users to use. theres still a few beta tags around and changes will still be made to it, but more minor ones or aesthetic. chocobogamer mine 17:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
ArchiveĀ 1ArchiveĀ 2ArchiveĀ 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:MSN_Messenger/Archive_1&oldid=363392135"