Redirecting Windows Longhorn to Server "Longhorn"
editNot much to argue, you decide, but I feel that how Whistler refers to XP and Whistler Server refers to Windows Server 2003, Longhorn always is Vista and Longhorn Server is Windows Server "Longhorn". Are you using it the redirection link urself ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.128.181.59 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
Server 2008
editThat's what Microsoft is calling it now on their website. I provided a link on Warren's talk page. — Alex(U|C|E) 03:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd agree that that makes it look likely, but it's still one step short of an official announcement. Until a major news outlet or presspass article officially recognises the name, it's not canonical enough to be suitable for wikipedia - there are plenty of sites online for up-to-the-minute news on this sort of thing. njan 03:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Softgrid
editGood job with the copyedits. :) Well done. --soum (0_o) 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Second opinion
editI need a second opinion on this diff. Judge it with respect to these diffs: [1], [2] and [3]. Sorry for bothering you but you seem to be the only one, who is a regular to these articles, active right now. Thanks. --soum (0_o) 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
RE:Njan
editNjan, the burden of proof does not lie with those seeking to remove fanciful material from wikipedia, and removing such material is not vandalism (see WP:Vandalism for how the people who edit that page define vandalism). You added material such as :
- The Scottish Gazeteer records that the island was granted to Robert de Keith by Malcolm II of Scotland in 1010 in recognisance of his efforts in fighting off Marauding Danes[1]. Lewis's A Topographical Dictionary of Scotland records that:
- "It derives its name from the gallant Keith, who, in 1010, so greatly signalised himself at the battle of Barrie, in Forfarshire, against the Danes, the island, with the barony of Keith, being conferred upon him on that occasion, as a reward for his valour, by Malcolm II"
- This relationship with Robert De Keith is where the present name probably comes from - Inch coming Innis (the Gaelic for an "Island" - Inchkeith would literally mean "Island of Keith".
This is pure fiction. There were no Norman-style families like that until more than a century after the reign of Mael Coluim mac Cinaeda. "Keith" is simply a specific placename element from which the later Keith family derived their locative surname. But let me go on. The following consists of little but historical fiction:
- In the days when people were compelled to cross the Firth of Forth by boat as opposed to bridge, the island was a great deal less isolated, and on the ferry routes between Leith/Lothian and Fife. The island’s proximity to Edinburgh also made it strategically useful for marine invasions, and it may have been used in this way by the Danes/Norse and the Romans before them (who established themselves at Cramond for a few years)
- Francis Hindes Groome, in his Ordnance Gazetteer of Scotland, notes that Ptolemy, in the 2nd Century AD refers to "Alauna, a town of the Otadeni" on Inchkeith. He further mentions that "This he further identifies with Bede's insular city of Giudi, which in 650 Osuiu, King of Northumbria, was forced by Penda, the pagan Mercian king, to ransom with all the riches in it and the neighbouring region". The earliest settlement on Inchkeith greatly predates the name, therefore.
- Between 679 and 704, St Adomnan, the abbot of Iona founded a "school of the prophets" on the island. He met St Serf here, newly arrived from Rome. Iona also had strong ties with Inchcolm, which was named after St Columba – whose biographer was St Adomnan.
- Malcolm II awarded Inchkeith and Dalkeith to Robert de Keth of Caithness, for helping to expel the Danes (see name etymology above). It is unknown when the island passed out of the possession of the Keith family[2], but it is known that it was the property of the Crown until granted to Lord Glamis, an ancestor of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, better known in the UK as the Queen Mother.
From that, it is clear that you are not competent to be adding content to wikipedia. That may sound harsh, but it is the truth. In fairness, maybe the websites are to blame for some of those falsehoods, but even that is generous interpretation, and still leaves the conclusion that you yourself are unable to distinguish truth from fiction ... in medieval material at least. I'm sure you acted in the best of faith, but wikipedia is not should not be a dumping ground for information placed on badly researched websites, rehashed by anyone with the enthusiasm but not the competence to do so. I'm sure much of the later material is probably reliable, but given that I know you are not reliable, I'm acting in wikipedia's best interest (though clearly not my own) by removing your material. I don't have time to give you history lessons ... would love to if I did have time; but if you insist on reinstating such material, I'll simply bring it to the attention of a wider audience in the hope that they will sacrifice their time to make up for your errors. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Read the above. The stuff you are adding is nonsense. Moreover, even if you claim all you are doing is pointing out that some Victorian source is saying this, that doesn't matter. The source is of little importance, and its speculation is historical nonsense. No need for it to be in the article. Removing it is a no-brainer, I will remove this content whenever you add it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
ISA server
editThanks for the heads up. I will take a look. :) --soum (0_o) 09:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- The article is in much better shape but it needs more work, the sooner the better. The Current Version section feels too technical. Not so technically savvy readers will have to sift through a lot of articles to figure out many terms, a few lines describing them would be helpful. Also quite a few terms like Cross-Array Link Translation are not explained at all. Also this feature overview is too shallow, a slightly deeper coverage would be better. And, a difference between performance/features between the regular mode and appliance mode would be great. You might think of a separate features or overview section as well. And a few lines on pricing and market share would also make it more informative. The Previous Versions section is great, it summarizes all aspects properly. Well done, keep up the good work. --soum (0_o) 15:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Reversion of Henley-on-Thames article
edit"George Harrison lived in Henley-on-Thames from the 1970s until his death in 2001. He resided in a mansion called Friar Park."
Thank you for your note, but this sentence clearly belongs in the "Historical Figures" section of the article, rather than the "Twinning" section, and I have repeated my original edit accordingly.
Windows Vista article
editI appreciate your help on the Vista article. I don't plan on doing any more work on it, though. I'm sorry to let your suggestions go to waste. Windows is apparently a subject some people keep close to their hearts, and articles like that are too frustrating and time-consuming. Thanks again.Altarbo 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Self referential edit
editSorry, I couldn't resist. The idea isn't original BTW, I've seen it elsewhere. Reading Douglas Hofstadter will do that to someone. Vincent 08:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Microsoft Silverlight#Request for Comment: XAML and SVG issue with Silverlight regarding the validity of a criticism, reffed from an ArsTechnica article. Could you please offer your opinions? --soum talk 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Domains and AD
editReplied at Talk:Windows Server domain#Merge with Active Directory.
Userpage vandalism
editYou can now update the count. :D --soum talk 09:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
RE:Njan
editAlready had this discussion with you. I'm perfectly entitled to remove rubbish from articles whether "cited" from tertiary sources or not, and unless you have something new to say I will continue to remove it. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm assuming the anon was you; the anon was definitely a registered user logged out, so if it wasn't you I'd be interested to know who it actually was. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
There's an edit war happening on CISSP, an article to which you've contributed.
tdbf is insisting on inserting a POV tag meaning he feels the article is not neutral.
I believe the article is neutral. I do think that it can be improved but as it stands the problem with the article is not that it's POV.
Would you please leave your thoughts on the matter on the article's talk page?
Thanks Vincent 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)