Talk:Microsoft Security Essentials/Archive 1

Archive 1

Free of charge

Free antivirus software [...] , free of charge. Twice free or free of charge in the very first sentence, someone gotta choose which one will stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.215.51 (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Download Microsoft Security Essentials?

Anyone knows a direct link for Microsoft Security Essentials? My MS Connect account just gives me a strange error "ID error", and I can't download it... :(

Nevermind, I found it!

It has been released now. Tdanecker (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Still Open

Part of the 3rd party sites is Softpedia. The link is still live for all versions. here. It is safe as I have downloaded it and used it on 2 of my computers. 96.53.229.107 (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

One think is being available on third-party sites, other is still being open (which Microsoft SE is not). SF007 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Region restricted release?

When I try to access the Microsoft Security Essentials website from Sweden it says the service is not available in my region, and considering that the "Not available in your region" page is written in at least 10 languages, I guess there are a lot of countries where you can't get the program, still nothing is mentioned about it being a US only (or at least restricted release) anywhere in this wikipedia article, nor any other sites I can find. 213.89.230.245 (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Its currently limited to: US, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, GB, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, and Switzerland. --Dominator Matrix 02:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you can still get it [1]. You get this error message because the software isn't available yet in your country's language, but you can still download the English one. --MK (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Firewall?

Does this app have a firewall? Windows Defender does, although I believe it only blocks inbound traffic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.60.232 (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither this application nor Windows Defender has a firewall or program control module. Firewall functionality is only available through Windows Firewall or OneCare. Fleet Command (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Version ?

Drbits (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Official download link is now 1.0.1961.0 version (March 5, 2010). This is not identified as a preview. There are "Rogue" versions containing malware available for download elsewhere. Download from Microsoft is recommended: [2]. Product uses automatic update to update up to three times per day, so your version may show a higher version number after installation.

Official download link offers an 1.0.1959.0 version. However in article 1.0.1959.0 is described as 'Preview release'. But no release announcement found --195.168.46.97 (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's being slowly rolled out but is available for download on the site. Dominator Matrix 08:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Outdated info? re: Windows Update settings change

The part that mentions the editor of PC Magazine that reviewed the software noted that Security Essentials changes your Windows Update settings to completely automatic. I installed version 1.0.1961.0 today and it did not change this setting as mentioned. It probably should be noted that this change has occurred as the article could imply, or someone could infer that this problem still exists. 173.74.245.34 (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Avast's response to MSE

Here's Avast's response to Microsoft Security Essentials. http://blog.avast.com/2009/10/02/and-what-about-microsoft-security-essentials%E2%80%94mse/ Bizzybody (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Fleet Command (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Positive Reviews"

Microsoft Security Essentials received positive reviews upon its release.

This comment means nothing and should either be deleted or expanded into something relevant. Who reviewed it? How do you define "positive"? How positive was it (slightly positive, mostly positive, REALLY positive, etc...)? What qualifications does the "postive" reviewer have? Do they work for Microsoft? Does EVERYONE think it's positive, or do some people disagree? If so, who, and what are their objections to it? Etc... ````Jonny Quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.251.249 (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose. The comment, which is located in the lead section, should not be touched: The lead section summarizes the entire article and hence all that you want is already included in the article along with the answer to all your questions. If you have graduated high school and have forgotten, consider re-studying thesis statement, topic sentence, summarization and abstract. Fleet Command (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition, if you are engaged in editing Wikipedia, please consider reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). Fleet Command (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of the “Reviews” section, comparing test results from two different organization (PC Magazine vs. AV-Test.org) to sustain that MSE official release did better than the Beta version is awkward to say the least. Obviously, the tests were different. It would be more appropriate to compare tests from the same company, AV-Test.org for example. Plus, that paragraph contains too many figures. A table would make it clearer.

But in any case, saying that “…the official release did significantly better in AV-Test.org tests.” (than the Beta version) is misleading and irrelevant. Was the Beta version awful and the official release only bad? If so, it still could be said that the official release did significantly better than the Beta version. That an official release does better than a Beta version is noting to write home about. The contrary would have been surprising and pitiful. It would be more honest and relevant to mention how did the official release do in tests compared to others.

Further, the way the October 2009 test from AV-Test.org is cited, gives the impression that Microsoft Security Essential is a great product when actually it is quite mediocre when you look at 2011 data. Citing blazing results in tests done almost 2 years ago is misleading if very different results from recent tests done by a credible organization like AV-TEST are readily available and not mentioned close by. Two years in the Virus world is an eternity! I want to point out that if you scroll in the tables of the Product Review and Certification Reports for 2011/Q1 and 2011/Q2 (www.av-test.org/certifications) you will realize that MSE couldn’t do better than being in the 8th group out of 9 in the “Protection” criteria. The only criteria in which MSE could achieve being in the first group is “Usability”. That’s not much of a consolation once you’re infected.

70.51.35.143 (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC) LeChatVolant

 Oppose.

First, tests by both organizations (PC Magazine and AV-Test.org) are similar: They throw a number of known malware at the product. In addition, there is no "awful to bad" case here: The case is 89% detection rate to 98.44% detection rate, which is "mediocre to outstanding".

Second, "old", "outdated", "two years" and "eternity" are meaningless: Wikipedia, like any other encyclopedia, is part history book. We don't delete credible information about past events. We merely add information on recent events. Therefore, there will be no rewrite; but if you have up-to-date data, feel free to add them along with your source. If you went wrong somewhere, we will fix you.

Fleet Command (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Fleet Command and 70.51.35.143

I think both of you have a point. Therefore, I am about to add more about later AV-TEST.org tests. Judging by what I read, I think this satisfies you both. If it does not, please feel free to let me know, although, Fleet Command, I understand if you don't want to; Mr. Stradivarius tells me that you are retired.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

4 MB of RAM during scan?

Brian Krebs of The Washington Post found Microsoft Security Essentials used only 4 megabytes of RAM during testing, even during scans.

I can say that that guy has no knowledge 'bout software. All what he did is running a scan and simply look at MSE process in the Task Manager. It takes only 4 MB during scan, but that is the memory taken by the GUI only. In Resource Monitor, I can see the scanning process takes up to 100 MB RAM. Of course this may vary depend on the system, but the sentence quoted above is absolutely stupid. Even a small program written by a noob just for studying could even takes up more memory than 4 MB. No antivirus program takes such less resources. The sentense above has citation source indeed, so I cannot remove it. But I don't know who add such a thing to the article. Has he/she ever thought about it? -- Livy the pixie (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, obviously MSE takes up ~100 megs of RAM running scans (XP). 94.191.188.87 (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

On my computer, msseces.exe, running right now, occupies only 3992 kilobytes (= 3.89 MB) during scan. Therefore, I am not going to doubt the accuracy of the source. Fleet Command (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And please be polite and do not accuse other people of stupidity. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Civility, one of the founding pillars of Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not confuse pointing out factual errors with not being civil. The scanning process you need to look for is called MsMpEng.exe, and it does take up 80+ megs. See: remove-malware.com/antimalware/antivirus-reviews/microsoft-security-essentials-ram-usage/ . In order for an AV to run efficiently, the signatures must reside in memory at scan-time. 79.138.239.4 (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

MsMpEng.exe, I see! I stand corrected. Fleet Command (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout my impoliteness. But I'm really hate those journalists. When they have nothing to write, they can write anything, even if they do not know what their new "discovery" is, just for attracting readers. The only thing I do not understand is that why the MsMpEng.exe does not show up on the Task Manager processes tab, but only on Resource Monitor. When MSE is running, it takes about 70 MB, and could take up to ~100 MB when running a scan. The msseces.exe which shows up on the Task Manager takes 4 -> 6 MB all the time, even if you're running a scan or not. -- Livy the pixie (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

MsMpEng.exe IS showing on my Task Manager. Only I hadn't looked at it. (My apologies.) On Windows 7 however, I have to press "Show All Processes" button at the bottom of the Task Manager. As for the journalists, I think you are right: I have seen them emphasize on nonsensical matters. Fleet Command (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits by James (User:M.O.X)

Hi.

I just reverted multiple edits made by James (User:M.O.X) and I think it is my duty to explain why. I reverted the edits because:

1. They added a sizable chunk of copyright protected contents. A entire statement from Microsoft Corporation was copied into the "False positive: Google Chrome" section of the article which was bigger than the entire section itself and added zero value to the article. Please take note that the overcoverage of this issue is not due and is prohibited in Wikipedia, especially with copyright protected contents. Antiviruses generate false positives from time to time, which are quickly resolved. It is against the Neutral Point of View pillar of Wikipedia to overcover one case just because the vendor is Microsoft.
2. They added a redundant See Also section. The added See Also section linked to the articles of other Microsoft security products for which we already have a navbox at the bottom of the article. Link is nice but once, not twice.

One of his edits also improved the article layout. I let that edit be.

Regards,

Fleet Command (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, your WP:OWN attitude on the articles of which you frequent is something that you should drop as that in itself is NOT neutral. Further, you clearly are UNFAMILIAR with copyright law, if you believe that quotes are banned then why don't you go on a campaign to have all quotes removed from Wikipedia? Also it was not undue as it added context, context is necessary and the barebones section in its original state did nothing in the encyclopedic content department, in fact the section was so negligible it should have been removed verbatim. So instead of MANGLING Wikipedia's policy and guidelines why don't you go do something good for a change? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:12am • 19:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear James, it is in both your and my best interest to avoid argumentum ad hominem, not merely because it is prohibited in Wikipedia, but because it poisons the atmosphere of friendship and makes working together impossible. So, instead of commenting on me (or even you) as a person, let's comment on the contents itself.

Now, as for the copyright violation, correct me if I am wrong but verbatim copy-and-paste of someone else's work without his express written permission is a copyright violation. Wikipedia:Copyright violations confirms this assertion of mine. You are however, allowed to use copyright protected contents in Wikipedia under the terms of fair use as long as you stick to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. Your insertion of Microsoft text is in violation of the aforementioned. Wikipedia:Copy-paste is also a good read.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Quotes are allowed, that's why Wikipedia has the contents of press releases available, THOSE DEFINITELY aren't freely available. Also, you really must be thick-headed because NFCC ALLOWS FOR the use of the quote because no free equivalent exists, it doesn't make Microsoft lose any marketshare or commercial opportunities, the extent of use and usage in general is minimal (one article), it was published elsewhere outside of Wikipedia, it meets content standards, it's not file media and therefore 6 does not apply, it is/was being used on one article until you removed it, it has contextual significance, it's use is restricted to article space, it is not file media and thus 10 also doesn't apply. Tell me now, how does it break policy? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:21pm • 12:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

James, I see that you have ignored those articles (Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Copy-paste) or parts of NFCC that do not agree with your action. You have made no mention of clause 8 (contextual significance), clause 3 (minimal usage) and clause 1 (replaceability with text). Now, I am willing to cooperate; if you have a valid argument to make, we can always reach a compromise. However, if all you are willing to do is refusing from get the point, assuming bad faith in me and calling me names, then our discussion is over.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Either you're blind or you completely ignored my statements, I MENTIONED EVERY FUCKING criterion. I've had enough of your pig-headedness, instead of wasting my time go find an admin. I don't have the time or energy to deal with idiots like you. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:57am • 16:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's please tone down the rhetoric. Some of these comments are getting way to close to personal attacks; and that's a big no-no here. thank you. — Ched :  ?  17:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Metro style assertion

I just reverted an unreferenced assertion of Microsoft Security Essentials now looking Metro-style. If you are willing to restore it, please bear in mind: This is a disputed matter and requires a verifiable source. Unreferenced contributions in Wikipedia are bound to be challenged or deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Description for an edit

Hi.

I am afraid I made a mistake in my edit summary. My last edit summary reads "ce edit by 494683007; eliminted wordiness" whereas it should read "ce edit by 71.75.46.53; eliminted wordiness". I copied and pasted the revision number instead of IP address.

Sorry. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not enough "due weight" for editing

So, when an article becomes "Featured" we can no longer edit them. That's just pathetic.

"In 2005, Microsoft acquired security software firm Sybari of Hauppauge, New York, and shortly thereafter released the Microsoft Forefront line of server security products based on Sybari Antigen."

Hello, KJRehberg

Sorry to bother you but I think I should give you a notice about your recent edit in Microsoft Security Essentials. I appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia in general but, please take note that every contribution to Wikipedia needs to have a verifiable citation from a reliable source. In case of Microsoft Security Essentials, however, the situation is more strict: This article is now a Wikipedia:Featured Article nominee and therefore we cannot accept random contributions, with source or without. Your contribution must have direct and explicit relation to the subject of the article and must have due weight. None of these three may be absent. Both I and my co-editor are under a lot of pressure to keep such contents out of the article. So, I am afraid your contribution is reverted.

For more information please see FACN1 and FACN2.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

--KJRehberg (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should at least make reference to this product in the article, even if it may be slightly tangential. I've added it to the "See also" section for now. Of course in general editors should not be reverting positive contributions to articles, and that shouldn't have happened here, FA candidate or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns?

Frankly I was shocked to note that this actually got through FAC. I raised very similar concerns there. Sources cited have been misquoted to make the product appear better than it actually is, contrary sources that were cited at FAC were dismissed as "only a beta" when the very articles cited were clear that they were reviewed final release versions. What we have here is an article devoid of meaningful criticism, instead it is simply a gushing piece of fancruft. I will be opening a dispute into the decision to award this FA status and in the meantime I am tagging for neutrality. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of positive writing because most sources do give a positive reception, in line with WP:DUE. --Jasper Deng (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I am compiling a review of reviews as we speak, it is nowhere near as one-sided as the article makes out. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC).

Remember that user reviews do not count because they're not reliable sources. The article does include valid criticism and makes no claims about the quality of the software. FAC discussion did not appear to consider your concerns, and I don't believe they are entirely valid. What do you want to change in this article?-Jasper Deng (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Quantumsilverfish

You raised numerous concerns and I in turn replied with quotations from the article. Since you even did not reply, the FAC director decided that your Oppose lacks merit and rejected it. Simply put, those who do not go beyond taking unquantified issues to an article are disregarded.

If you are still willing to resume the discussion where you have left off, I am on board.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

He or she made a point at FAC and here and you ignored it. Instead you continued to misquote sources given and misattribute or ignore contrary sources given. Yes, the editor does need to expand his arguments and I'll leave him a message, but to sweep his arguments under the carpet instead of deal with them is not proper. He has raised a prima facie case and backed it up. I share the concerns he raised. 91.125.204.25 (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC).

I do not believe these neutrality concerns are valid, especially since specific examples are needed (and no, there's no such thing as a "featured article director"), and existing criticism is in line with WP:DUE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jasper

There is such a thing as "FA director". See this quote from WP:FAC:

The FA director, Raul654—or one of his delegates, Ucucha, Graham Colm, and Ian Rose—determines the timing of the process for each nomination.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"I share the concerns he raised" - how about stating the exact concerns as well as providing the exact steps to fix them instead of blindly restoring the "Neutrality" tag and desperately begging the other editor to get back into conversation while hiding behind anonymous IP? Rndomuser (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns, my foot! It is over-pronounced anti-Microsoft prejudice plus trolling, so strong that he forgot to add a section title for his message. Fleet Command (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being away for so long (I've been away with work), but that attitude makes it clear we are not going to be able to resolve this here. As such I am now opening a case at FAR. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC).

The truthfulness of the statement

In the "Reviews and awards" section, the statement reads: "Since March 2011, Microsoft Security Essentials has been tested and certified seven more times, showing constant improvements in the results" This is not quite true - if one will actually go to the reference for this statement it is clear here that, for example, the score for "Protection" part of the test have varied since March 2011, going up and down (currently it stands at "2.0" in the latest test), so there hasn't been a "constant improvement", at least not what I would objectively consider as such. Rndomuser (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this statement. --Jasper Deng (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

...now you broke the "ref" tag ;-) Rndomuser (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

...and now I've fixed it I hate the Cite extension . --Jasper Deng (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if it's important, but...

In the "Features" section, there's a quote that says: "As a part of real-time protection, MSE reports all suspicious behaviors of monitored programs to Microsoft SpyNet, a web-based service". First of all, isn't it called "MAPS" (Microsoft Active Protection Service) right now, instead of "SpyNet"? Second of all, "reports all" is a very broad description, MSE has user-controllable settings to control exactly how much of "suspicious behaviors" is being reported to Microsoft, including an option to disable all reporting altogether... So... Just letting you know ;-) Rndomuser (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I see it has been fixed already, so no further comments. Except maybe someone may consider updating the "SpyNet" article sometime in future ;-) Rndomuser (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit - 2012-10-26

Just wanted to post my reasons behind the recent edit in case someone was wondering and also to ask if someone wouldn't mind reading over it to double check my spelling and grammar. I noticed that the start of the Features section was mostly copy pasted from the summary above it, this felt redundant so I deleted the copy pasta from features and left it in the summary. I also moved the sentences about the engine and lack of firewall from the summary to Features and meshed it in with some of the info already in features. All the same information should still be there from before, just in a hopefully more condensed version. The only point I simply trashed was the little blurb about the faulty update that detected chrome as malware. Faulty updates are almost certainly not a feature, so it definitely didn't belong in features, and I also don't think that a single update which caused a false signature and was fixed 3 hours later is really worth mentioning at all. If someone feels it's absolutely crucial to the academic knowledge gained from reading this article I guess it could go in the summary...

50.54.252.208 (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I am going to be frank with you in this case: thanks for the good faith – believe me, we appreciate it – but your edit have been in direct violation of Wikipedia policies, so it is reverted. The feature is not a copy and paste of the lead; lead is the last thing written. But the similarity is intentional, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. As for the removing the criticism, you went against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. We mix description, explanation and critical commentary together. This is our policy. A separate criticism section is not allowed: Wikipedia articles should consist of an all-positive prose and an all-negative criticism section.

It is best not to tamper with Featured articles without familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia. They go under a very detailed scrutiny before becoming featured.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You should be encouraging editors to make changes, especially newcomers,see WP:BRD. WP:OWN might also apply but I haven't been here long enough to make such an assessment, so please take it as a friendly caution. Skippydo (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. That is true and I love to be encouraging but being encouraging and at the same time keeping the article up to Wikipedia standards aren't exactly mutually exclusive. We have Wikipedia policy and guideline literature to back the revert up and a WP:FAC which enforced it quite heavy-handedly. Although, yes, I always feel a pang of guilt when I hit the revert button.

Last but not least, I assume you're the same person as the IP address, right? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not the IP. I have no strong opinion on your reverting the edit, I presume it was the correct decision. Discouraging newcomers from following WP:BRD is counter to wikipedia's core philosophy, regardless of whether or not the edits will stick. Skippydo (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I see. But in that case, what makes you think I am discouraging our dear guest from BRD? (We are doing BRD after all, aren't we?) If you are referring to the last sentence in my original reply, even WP:OWN recommends this. Remember, advice of caution in one particular case must not be interpreted as abolishing a broad guideline (BRD, in this case). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I see now that I've misunderstood what you meant by It is best not to tamper with Featured articles, my apologies. Skippydo (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

doesn't have full coverage

Why is there no mention of the antitrust allegations for this product? or the reviws that are critical of mse? This almost reads like it could have been a release from the microsoft press office with a little bit of copyediting done to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.97.29 (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't write things like "Why is there no mention of the antitrust allegations for this product?" without actually reading the article, which does mention the antitrust allegations. If you have any sources for the critical reviews, we would be glad to incorporate them into the article. Please read WP:V and WP:RS first -- doing so will save a lot of wasted effort. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Already included in the article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of the product is still missing, because as far as I know, it has so far been relegated to user help forums and the like. One of the reasons for this is that adverse experiences surface during long-term use of MSE and not through the course of the short testing period that is used for product reviews in trade publications. Not sure if I should include all the rightful criticism of MSE that I am aware of. This would require criticism from reliable sources, but which computer journalist would test an antivirus product for any lengthy amount of time and then write a review perhaps just six months before a new major/sub-major version is out? -Mardus (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Although both of your premises (that MSE works well in the short term but not in the long term, and that no computer journalist does long-term testing) are questionable, it doesn't matter even if they are true. Wikipedia reports what is in reliable sources. We don't try to figure out why something isn't in the sources. We just report what is there. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. That is exactly why the article used antivirus test labs instead of journalists. They do long-term tests. AV-TEST.org has made at least three such test and they are all included in the article. (I considered adding AV-Comparatives but I realized that Microsoft were absent from their real-world tests.) In the meantime, please feel free to include all the rightful criticisms of MSE that you have seen in reliable sources. We can include those. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

British dates?

Why exactly does this article use British-styled dates? (i.e. 18 September 2012) Per WP:DATED, we should use the style that has strong national ties to the subject. Since this software is developed by an American company, it has strong ties to the U.S. in my opinion (a similar discussion is going on at Talk:Windows 8). I'd do it myself, but given the controversy related to this on the Windows 8 article, I'd rather ensure we have a discussion. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There are a couple of things that you should know.

First, DMY date style is not British; it has wide global acceptance. (See Date format by country.) MDY, on the other hand, is far more closely associated with the United States. Furthermore, I am sure you know that Britain and United States are not the only English-speaking countries in the world and there are more than two variations of the English language.

Second, the issue of Microsoft and its strong ties to USA is discussed over and over in Wikipedia and the general consensus is that Microsoft and its products do not have any such strong ties, as Microsoft is a multinational corporation with huge overseas market and a determined focus on product internationalization and localization. Microsoft products are discussed in international scale in a manner that does not pertain a certain region of the world and therefore there is nothing strictly American about a Microsoft product. In case of Microsoft Security Essentials, OPSWAT reports included in the article shows that too.

Third, this article has gone through a comprehensive WP:FAC and is closely inspected by half a dozen of editors, meaning that any changes to its date style (or whatever aspect of it that went under FA scrutiny) requires overwhelming consensus.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong version number?

Hi all. I just updated MSE (to the latest version) today, and it reports a version number of 4.2.223.0. I did a bit of research on this, and according to:

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/protect/forum/mse-protect_start/mse-program-update-to-422231-shows-as-422230/ab4f4e4e-4afc-428b-93c9-aa05260dc349

the version number "4.2.223.1" is only a typo, as the correct version number is "4.2.223.0". The version number on the article should be corrected, but I don't know how to. Could someone please do this for me? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.110.81 (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. Forum posts, except those made by official spokespersons, are not reliable sources. In this case, the guy who says it is a typo holds no official status and merely states his own assumption. The other way around may also be correct: Developers made a last minute change and forgot to change the version number in the program itself. I suggest we stick to what reliable source says. In any case, slight changes in build number (the disputed last digit) are negligible.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange repetition of lead in next section

I deleted the repeated text in the "Features" section only to have this reverted. Articles don't normally repeat the lead word for word. This is totally redundant. The lead is a summary of the article not a cut and paste. 01:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhny (talk • contribs)

Hi.

Other stuff exists is the least favorite discussion around here and what you did to article was to create more problem than solving. First, other articles do a terrible mistake that don't do this; as a result, they don't have the chance of a snowball in furnace to ever become a Featured Article. On the other hand, this article already is Featured and the FA discussion pressed hard to make sure the lead does not have any novel info of its own. The way you did it, lead would come in possession of an entire paragraph of novel info and a defaced "Features" section that starts with an out of context sentence about one of the most intricate details of the product.

In your recent edits, you have recurrently cited Wikipedia:Writing better articles. I think you must read that article again.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Bhny: Your concern might be right but you have deleted a chunk of text along with its associated references. The net result is a bunch of red errors at references section at the bottom, a whole other bunch of unreferenced text violating WP:V and a bizarre-looking Features section. What you did is analogous to solving the problem of unclean streets by dropping a bomb on the affected city! I would have reverted you without a thought. Honestly, this redundancy doesn't look bad at all. But the important thing is the way to improving an article is writing, not deleting. If the opposite was true, vandals would have become great Wikipedians by just adding an edit summary. Fleet Command (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that I broke the refs. Obviously a bad accident (I think there's a bot that repairs these things but that's no excuse). Anyway I was personally attacked on my talk page after this edit, so I've decided that trying to improve this article is not worth the effort. Goodbye. Bhny (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Bhny: No, bots do not fix this type of problems. (Bot can only fix orphaned named <ref> whose body is deleted.) As for the messages on your talk page, they are neither personal nor attack. You made a mistake; someone fixed it for you. You'll live happier if you don't exaggerate things into "blatant repetition" and "personal attack" but the choice is yours. Fleet Command (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So predictable...

I have made an improvement (see this final version) to this outdated article with a proper English language reference quoting a relevant information in a perfectly understandable way and removed unnecessary invisible comments (which are NOT helpful to the readers)... Yet it is being reverted again??? I understand that since you promoted this article as "GA" you feel that ONLY YOU are entitled to do any kind of improvement, but this is beyond ridiculous...173.68.110.16 (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to this? You added two rude comments and supplied no reason for content deletion. 108.82.12.77 reverted you but you edit warred by counter-reverting and called the person who disagrees with you a "vandal". Yes, your contribution was beyond ridiculous. Good riddence. Fleet Command (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You look, but you can't see... Please re-read my original comment again and please, pretty please, with sugar on top, find the "rude comment" in that exact version. You can't, huh? How about the fact that a direct English language source is a more trustful and neutral way to acquire information for a non-German language reader than some person's ambiguous translation from German to English? And how about lack of need for redundant invisible comments in my last edit? Or you will disagree with that too? Of course, it's easier to just WP:ABF any editor who is not a part of certain clique instead of focusing on actually making an article useful...173.68.110.16 (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Date format

Per this being an article on an American company's product, shouldn't this be in MDY format? -- Calidum 15:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Calidum: WP:STICK. You had better come clean: Every other five time that the subject of the date format of this article has come up, it was because someone, who had a dispute with another editor, wanted to harass that editor at Wikipedia's expense. I've grown tired of the repetition of this sickening discussion over the course of six years. So, I summarize: If you are referring to WP:STRONGNAT, no. This article has no strong national ties to United States of America. Microsoft is an international company and MSE has stronger ties to China than to US. Fleet Command (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. That would be me. Calidum has started an edit war in Microsoft Office 2013 and seems disinterested in any sort of discussion. Through my own carelessness, I seem to have lost the discussion because of a technicality ... although, interestingly, Wikipedia fundamental policy says it must not happen like that.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You were bound to run into this dark side of Wikipedia one day. When it comes to date styles, Americans can become some very filthy cheaters. Don't get your hopes up. There won't be any compromise this time. There are two solutions to this, one is very tempting: Run around Wikipedia, find an article, find an excuse that it is non-American, claim that has national ties to another country, convert its date style to anything you like. They have to sit and watch their favorite film and anime articles with a different date style. All those books by non-American writers like J.K.Rowling, Agatha Christie, Alexander Dumas, Milton, etc. All those Japanese manga and anime. All those articles about countries, cities, villages, churches, landmarks, even cars, combat planes. All those football, basket ball, baseball, rugby and tennis players. What's left is the date style of the company who everyone loves to hate.

Or you can pretend you don't give damn about some date. Problem? One day, you'll wake up to a world that is used to cheat on you and get a reprieve from a person who doesn't give a hoot about anything. Fleet Command (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Windows Defender Supercedes MSE in Win8

I added edits 1/31/15 that tried to clarify that MSE has been subsumed/replaced by Windows Defender in Win8 (and presumably forward). MSE is not supported for Win8. See the Windows Defender article.

The updates were backed out as 'Original Research' This was not 'original research', just trying to sync the two product descriptions, to reflect current reality. LarryLACa (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@LarryLACa:

• First, what is "1/31/15"? (If that's a date, you didn't edit on 31 January 2015.)
• Second, "backed out"? Do you mean "reverted"?
• Third, "This was not 'original research'" means you have a source ready at hand. Then, please cite that source! Oh, and should you encounter original research; delete it; don't sync it.
• Fourth, I am looking at your edit; it didn't say "MSE has been subsumed/replaced by Windows Defender in Win8". It said they were the same. In general, one should think with his brain, not with his eyes. Just because Windows Defender and MSE look alike doesn't mean that they are the same internally. (The look of MSE comes from the obscure Microsoft Forefront Client Protection.) But Windows Defender on Windows 8 is definitely not MSE. It has an ELAM driver added and has no network intrusion prevention module. They all consume the same AV database but that doesn't mean they use it the same way.

Fleet Command (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)