User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

June 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Internet Information Services. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Internet Information Services[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg You are on the verge of violating the 3-revert rule. Like I said before, don't edit war even if you're right. In any case, "hacked" means many things, not all of which are properly justified by the sources you provided. It also seems that you are not adhering to our neutral point of view policy, as suggested by what you are trying to connotate with what you wrote. You are synthesizing that from sourced info, but what you are synthesizing is not sourced. In addition, your sources for at least one of the entries you provide does not back up the claim that IIS is to fault here. I highly suggest reviewing our manual of style before trying to insert this.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Internet Information Services, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Fleet Command (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
I think you actually need to read the neutral point of view policy. If posting partially unsourced incidents about IIS security, and then trying to connotate IIS isn't secure is not from a neutral point of view, I don't know how to explain this to you. If you continue, I will have an admin block you, because this simply isn't acceptable.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You have violated the three-revert rule. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You are definitely violating our neutral point of view policy, and are edit warring, all of which is considered disruptive editing. Also, considering a block, we will use a range block if we find you evading a block.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree any software has vulnerabilities, but this sort of disruption wasn't acceptable.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC), I feel obliged to ask you to explain yourself: You have used this source: say:

As of June 2011, according to, IIS 6 had a total of 6 vulnerabilities and IIS 7 had a total of 11 vulnerabilities out of which 1 is still unpatched.

But the source is about IIS 7 only and says:

Unpatched 0% (0 of 6 Secunia advisories)

So, why do you write what you have written? Please explain. Where did you get your eleven from? Fleet Command (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It was the opposite, sorry. For IIS 6 it's 11 and for IIS 7 it's 6. Changing (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. But your contributions are still problematic. For example, you have inserted a <ref>{{cite news | url=<the URL>}}</ref> in the middle of the article which only disfigures it! Your link for IIS 6 is also ... well, like this:
<ref>{{cite news]] | url=}}</ref>.
Please fix these. Also your other sources suffer from Wikipedia:Bare URLs issues. For example, this:
<ref>{{cite news | url=}}</ref>
... needs title, work, date and author parameters. There are multiple instances of links like this. Please fix these too.
Now, you have also included information about Akamai which doesn't have much to do with IIS. (Your sources say Akamai provided firewall, IDS and caching services. These are not the duties of IIS. Microsoft have since then released ISA Server 2004, 2006 and so on to replace Akamai.) But fortunately, you still have not made any serious violation of WP:NPOV. So, thanks for you consideration. Fleet Command (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
When the vendor of IIS uses Apache... this proves certain things which the reader of the article really wants to know about. This's like saying in hints that they they don't trust their own products. Caching is supposed to help a dieing webserver and firewalling to protect extremely large amount of attacks. MS could have used their own, but they did not.
Ok, sorry about that again. About multiple links, I did that to ensure, that yes, this's true stuff. (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I've not heard any news that Microsoft has stopped using Akamai services. Do you have any sources? According to Microsoft is still a customer, but how... that it does not tell. Also this IP might change, so you might like to talk in the article's page. (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you please refrain from inserting your reply in the middle of mine? Doing so makes your comments very difficult to read. Thanks in advance.

I never said Microsoft stopped using Akamai. I merely said the material you inserted does not pertain to an article which is not about a Microsoft firewall or a Microsoft cache server. Consider moving them to instead.

As for inserting the same source for multiple items, we use "named references" in Wikipedia. Please study Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes) to learn more. Fleet Command (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I was searching for that article. My IP did change. I'll do it soon. (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)