Talk:Microsoft TechNet

Untitled

What should be said about Technet?

Proposal: Articles to administrators/power users

Different subscriptions: What you get when you buy a certal subscription

The possiblity to get OS's before the retail market

Number of documents on Technet

It is a little strange to not let a database speak for itself. Running a search on TechNet gives a very good idea on how many documents are currently being hosted. What other source could probably give a better estimate? Now of course Microsoft adds documents everyday on TechNet - but it was never my intention to provide an exact number - the idea was to give an idea (100 - 1000 - 100000 or 11 millions ). We do the same thing when talking about how many articles are being hosted on Wikipedia - we run a search come up with a number and make it 40 million - just to give an idea. Just as with TechNet this number is far from being precise - but it provides readers with an idea of the volumes. christophe (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

I did remove an edit introducing a similar claim so times ago. Two problems:

1. The edit was original research. To enter a search string into a search engine and then interpret its result however one fancies is original research. Such a claim must be published in a journal and received editorial review.
2. Let's assume the number is correct. So what? Raw statistics are not allowed in Wikipedia; we don't publish number just because numbers are sexy. Information published here must be in context; i.e. a source must be quoted to say what they mean. On the other hand, if you are thinking "Wow! This number is big! TechNet must be awesome! Let's write it in Wikipedia!" stop yourself! First, define "awesome". Second, WP:SYNTH.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Lisa, thank you for your contribution - in the light of what you say you should have a look the article for Wikipedia on WP:EN QUOTE collaboratively write Wikipedia's 30 million articles in 287 languages UNQUOTE big sexy number with no sources at all and - flipping egg - not much context neither. This set a terrible example for us young & naive WP editors. I believe you - as a well seasoned senior editor - should talk to whomever wrote that article and remove those numbers - unless they are being properly explained (context!) and properly sourced.

To find sources should not be all that hard (much less hard than to find any sources about TechNet) - most journalist use exactly those numbers since they are easy to find on WP:EN whenever they write about Wikipedia, which makes me wonder if s.o. actually knows what the real numbers are and what sources can be trusted ... I guess a query in the database could ... be ... useful ... but then again there is Raw statistics are not allowed in Wikipedia and WP:SYNTH anyways I obviously lack the experience and legal WP:rulez expertise. Sincerely yours christophe (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Amusing and witty as your comment is, the existence of other problems is no precedent for making more problems. In addition, false assertions like the one you made about Wikipedia article only gives you a reputation of an unreliable person. Because the rest of the article does give context. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I would have argued the same way (no bad deed ever justifies another bad deed) ...and yes I am everything but reliable and my reputation is to be a terrible rule bending WP contributor with no respect for anything that starts with "WP: ". Sincerliest yours christophe (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting?

Under the Libraries section, IT Professionals is italicized, but I don't understand why. Could someone explain why, or are the italics unnecessary? - 5donuts (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. A c.e. is in progress, so you should probably check the article again. But our guideline for italicization is WP:ITALICS. Other than that, the only threshold for italicization are obvious exceptional cases. If it is not obvious to your why it is italicized, then it is wrong. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

TechNet Magazine

@Lisa:

1. "Nothing about 2005" - spring 2003 was the first printed edition - it's rather easy to find a source for that - but if this is about having less information rather than than doing a little research that's fine by me ...
2. "100,000 readers" have not seen any source - why not remove it
3. "TechFlash news not relevant" - can you elaborate what exactly is the argument for relevance (non-relevance actually)? --基 (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 基

I numbered your comment so that we can discuss it more easily. I hope it is okay with you.

1. Surely, if I intended "having less information" as you put, I'd have deleted it. Yes, I meant to look for the source, but real-world business detained me. So, the {{citation needed}} would help until then.
2. Out of respect and because of what I said above. If you wish to, however, please go ahead.
3. Flash is distinct from the Magazine. It has always been. I've been receiving it since 2004.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft TechNet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090801125551/http://blogs.technet.com/johmar/archive/2008/08/27/microsoft-is-planning-much-more-than-just-social-bookmarking.aspx to http://blogs.technet.com/johmar/archive/2008/08/27/microsoft-is-planning-much-more-than-just-social-bookmarking.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140308080820/http://blogs.technet.com/b/johmar/archive/2008/05/30/new-social-bookmarking-feeds-in-msdn-dev-centers.aspx to http://blogs.technet.com/b/johmar/archive/2008/05/30/new-social-bookmarking-feeds-in-msdn-dev-centers.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)