User talk:Nicholas2020

WMA/WMV articles

- - Hello. Your contributions to the WMA/WMV articles do not seem to fully accurate and without citations. For instance, there seems to be no mention of a "Windows Media Video Professional" codec on Microsoft's website or anywhere else on the web. Also, note that WMV HD is a branding, not a codec in itself. Can you verify all your contributions with references?

re:WMA

- - I am sorry I misunderstood your intention, but the act of *singling out a service* which is identified by an external link sounds advertising-oriented act to me. Anyways, I have now realized what you are trying to show. But the wording is what bothers me. I am not particularly fond of "as of..." (articles are kept current, arent they?) and "only a few stores ..." is we (editors) making the conclusion, which, I am afraid, we are not allowed to do. To claim that only a few sources distribute, it needs to be attributed to a reliable source. That said, I too am having trouble formulating a sentence that I like. :D --soum ^talk 18:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC) -[reply]

Thanks for paying attention to my suggestions. :) Anyways, hope you are having a nice time here. Feel free to contact me for any assistance. --soum ^talk 18:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback for WMA

- It could become a good article, but not a featured article yet. It will need more pictures though, for eg: you could get a picture of a media player playing the file. If you are aiming for FA, you will need to have a history of the development of the file, which team was behind it. You need to get some citations for the intro as well. The article looks pretty good now. Not that many technical words are used for such an article. Hope this helps--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC) -[reply]

On a side note, please always sign other people's talk pages with --~~~~. This always helps editors identify to whom they are taking to --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-

What I meant was the language used in the article was not very technical which is a good thing as laymen can understand the article. Hope this helps--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 04:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

- - I added a few suggestions for what you could do to improve the article, on the peer review you requested for the article, here. –sebi 07:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:VistaWMVIcon.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VistaWMVIcon.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:VistaWMAIcon.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VistaWMAIcon.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]