Talk:Product activation

message: Article text is: See http://www.licenturion.com/xp/fully-licensed-wpa.txt http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/ http://windows.about.com/cs/ productactivation/ or search for more: http://www.google.co.uk/ search?sourceid=navclient&q=%22windows+xp%22+%22product+activation%22
This page should be deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.75.231.4 (talk • contribs) 07:39, October 27, 2003  (UTC)
:Anyone know if this complaint has been addressed yet? Aapo Laitinen 20:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as of yet.  I've compared this article to the 3 listed sources, and none of them appear to contain duplicate text.  The first is a technical paper that covers the ins and outs of Windows product activation, circa WinXP RC1.  This is full of mathematical jargon such as hash functions and check-digits and such, none of which is in this article.  The second "source" is MS's page on activation; this one doesn't appear to have any dupe text, either.  The last is a now-dead link to a page on about.com. — EagleOne\Talk 02:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio?

message: Is it correct to add the following in the section criticism?
Someone might have no connection to internet, and this would render activation impossible or very troublesome. Further, even those who have an internet connection might want to  never connect some particular computer to the net (for example, if the are storing data which are intended to be kept absolutely secret). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Popopp (talk • contribs) 12:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you do it by telephone. The activation wizard asks whether you want to do it by talking to a person. SchmuckyTheCat 15:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that all companies allow telephone activation; anyway, it may cause inconvenients, be expensive etc. Moreover, as long as I do not connect the computers to some net, I can use the same code for as many machines as I want, so the activation procedure has little sense!--Popopp 15:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism: someone might have no internet connection 

message: :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
keep at present title. See also WP:CAPS. ProhibitOnions (T) 20:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.
*Support as per http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/mpa.aspx e.g. "The goal of Product Activation is...", "Product Activation is a simple...", "Microsoft Product Activation is easy..." Ewlyahoocom 06:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The article doesn't need a list of products that require activation. Seems to be focusing excessively on Microsoft. 12.155.246.10 (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on a list of products is biased; there is undue weight on Microsoft. Dragon 280 (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Microsoft is just about the only major corporation that requires it.  Now, some security solutions require you to pay so that you can get the updates that make the software useful, and I know diskeeper requires activation.  But that's quite different from the operating system that is used on 90% of computers, and the Office Suite with the largest market share.72.147.217.126 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Having a list is convenient - it is sometimes hard to find out directly what products require activation (information is hidden).  Microsoft is heavily represented because they publish a lot of products that uses activation.  Zodon (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't EA be added? As Mass effect on the PC requires product activation IKasno (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Last time I checked, Wikipedia is not a directory. ViperSnake151  Talk   21:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I removed it again along with unreferenced material some that has had citation needed since September 2007.  This was reverted with a comment to take it to the talk page, but that editor has not commented here, just reverting.  The information as to what products require activation is not needed as explained above.  Coin Operation (talk) (alternate account of GB fan) 23:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Above, multiple users - besides myself - have expressed concerns about removing this material from the article. Therefore, a proper WP:CON is required to remove it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see multiple user that have expressed concerns about removing the list.  I see Zodon feels that the list is "convenient".  Then there is Ikasno that wanted to add EA to the list.  Two others commented in 2008, one said the list is biased and the other says it is not needed.  Now in 2013 we have myself and Vipersnake that feel it doesn't belong and have explained why.  You have never explained why you feel the list should be retained, GB fan 11:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

text: My request that I made above and at the ANI discussion still stands, Why do you think the information belongs?  GB fan 19:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of products