Talk:MSN Messenger/Archive 1

message: 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 . The eMessenger project at  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 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.72.113 (talk • 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)
thread_title:  Compatibility 

message: 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:I can't find the links I'm thinking of at the moment, but there's this, a little outdated, but specifies 120 million users each month. 9 July 2005 06:37 (UTC)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)
thread_title:  how many users? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism and NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title:  Messenger 7.5 and Passport 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Malware 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.109.198.213 (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.109.198.213 (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: .php blocking?

message: "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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  IE6 required? 

message: Does anyone know anything on messenger plus?
Cheers --LeftyG 06:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Messenger Plus!. FireFox 09:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I loaded it once... got pounded with pop ups and spyware...would not recommend it.--Mfinney 04:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have checked the "no adware" option. -- <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">getcrunk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3366FF">juice</FONT>contribs 19:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messenger Plus 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with you there should be a list. --Terence Ong Talk 05:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's a list of MSN Messenger v6.0  emoticons:  --Freethemustard 07:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's the v3.6 - v4.6 list of MSN Messenger emoticons:  --Freethemustard 07:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And here's the list of the latest version (v7.5) emoticons:  --Freethemustard 07:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  emoticons/games 

message: 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  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 mistakes—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)
thread_title:  MSN Messenger 7.5.0322 has been pulled 

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

message: 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.125.177.2 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 6.2 (MSNP10) no longer allowed 

message: *[Regarded as support] Since the new version Windows Live Messenger is noted as version 8.0, it is assumed it is an addition to the pre-existing MSN Messenger line of products. This implies, of course, that both are the same product. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dustin 19:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick response : ) - 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge to WLM 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move Protected 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Freeware? 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
====Survey - Oppose votes====
#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)
thread_title: Survey

message: #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)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vendor lock-in? 

message: Why is there a link to enttwist (whatever that is) and not to messenger.msn.com? That site seems completely irrelevant.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.194.74.215 (talk) 14:14, August 22, 2007 (UTC) 
Never mind, seems like personal ads. 62.194.74.215 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to website 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pop-up ad attacks 

message: :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.
*Oppose - The Roman Empire is not merged with the History of Italy. MSN Messenger is also still useable. Reginmund 19:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
replies: text: Enough citations are now present for the filtering section. It's no longer WP:OR - xpclient Talk 08:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Filtering "controversy" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Version info 

message: 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)
thread_title:  .NET failures