Talk:Internet Information Services

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10 Connection Limit for 5.1[edit]

Are you sure this is still true? I work in very large tech company. IT said that it can support more then 10, more then 1000 etc.? "IIS 5.1 for Windows XP Professional. IIS 5.11 for Windows XP is a restricted version of IIS that supports only 10 simultaneous connections and a single web site". 64.102.254.33 16:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of IIS 5.0, 6.0, or 7.0, they can all support thousands of connections -- depending largely on hardware configuration. IIS 5.1 for 32-bit XP Pro only supports 10 simultaneous connections. See: Internet Information Services 5.1. This is more a function of the operating system than of the web-server, however. (see: Windows XP Professional Resource Kit). As a side-note, 64-bit XP Pro came with IIS version 6.0 instead of version 5.1. //BankingBum 18:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC) $$[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Is the article claiming that IIS is more secure because it has less reported vulnerabilities? Shouldn't it compare the ratios of exploited vulnerabilities, or attack success rate, or any other more meaningful metric? And in addition to that, the IIS server version 6.0 is compared against "Apache" without giving any version of Apache server, is that fair? What do you mean by "Apache had thirty three vulnerabilities"? 89.138.236.28 19:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section is well weighted. Previously, the article was weighted to say that IIS was insecure and did not include any comparison at all. Adding context to the article provides a more neutral point of view. The article does provide the Apache version and a link to the source of comparison (http://secunia.com/product/73/). There is a possibility of polishing that section a bit more, so feel free to jump in and add anything of encyclopedic value. //BankingBum Jun. 03:15:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC) $$[reply]
The reference link for the Apache report was broken, and it was about the Apache 2.0.x. I updated the article with the report of the latest version, 2.2.x, with a reference of the same web site. I didn't especify the version of Apache because this is not its article, but if someone disagree feel free do something about.
--Firmo 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authentication Methods[edit]

The article states that 5.0 and above use .NET authentication, but then goes on to say that 7.0 dropped support for MS Passport. Am I way off, I thought these were one in the same :) //

Link Spam[edit]

In an attempt to combat link spam, I've added the substituted template {{subst:NoMoreLinks}} to the external links section as per Wikipedia:Spam#Tagging_articles_prone_to_spam Christopher G Lewis (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Links[edit]

Gogo Dodo removed some deep links that were in the external links section. However, these were actual links to the MS TechNet doc section for IIS 7. What's the determination of a "Deep Link"? Christopher G Lewis (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

I'm proposing that we alter the External links to:

The XP install link may be, but Windows XP older technology, and IIS is generally thought of as a server product.

Finally, any thoughts on splitting links via version - IIS7, IIS6?

Christopher G Lewis (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the installationr:Soumyasch|soum]] talk 18:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massive hack attack[edit]

I just read in a newspaper site in Spanish (oh wait, here is a English source http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2008/04/microsoft-datab.html) that there has been a massive hack attack against several web pages, all of them running on IIS. I thinki this is important and it should be added.--ometzit<col> (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a generic SQL injection attack and any web server can be used as an attack vector. There is nothing special about these attacks, nor anything specific about IIS, in that they do not exploit any security holes in IIS, but rather in the web application itself - which is not a part of IIS. Neither IIS nor Microsoft SQL Server are to be blamed for that. --soum talk 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Internet Information Services 7[edit]

Internet Information Services (IIS) 7 is NOT available in Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP!!!
Microsoft Web Platform Installer (Web PI) does NOT install IIS 7 on Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP computers, and it installs IIS 6 or 5.1 on those computers... However, Web PI installs IIS 7 Manager for Remote Administration on Windows Server 2008, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP... In addition, IIS 7 Manager for Remote Administration does NOT support IIS 6 or 5.1...
Therefore, please do NOT state that IIS 7 supports Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP!!! UU (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who does really need it?[edit]

Perhaps the article should include a clarification that is nowhere to be found in Microsoft-related literature: Why should a simple user having XP or Vista need IIS in the first place?. It would seem that Microsoft is assuming that every Windows PC out there is going to perform as a web server, sooner or later, and has taken measures to insure the IIS service is present and active everywhere, even if it doesn't: when an attempt is made to stop it (with the aim of disabling it altogether) a warning message appears that says the SMTP (outgoing mail) service is also going to be stopped. Which leads me to further intriguing questions about the relationship between those two services. Thanks, SciCorrector (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad there is no answer. Are there any popular home-user applications for Windows 7 that require some parts of IIS turned on in Win 7 Pro or Win 7 Ultimate operating system?

88.192.242.201 (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sloppy benchmark reference[edit]

"But benchmarks show that even IIS 7.0 in the kernel is slower than others that run in user-mode[8]."

This is not true: Only a single benchmark is referenced, and that benchmark compared IIS to a hardly known software called G-WAN. The benchmark was done by G-WAN's creators (Neutrality?) Also, on the same site they claim that IIS is fastest, but only because Windows is unneccessarily slow in user mode on Windows XP(!). Speed on XP is irrelevant for server apps, and the TCP/IP stack of Windows 2008 Server is known to be much better than XP. etc.

I suggest this claim and the reference are removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motherofinvention (talk • contribs) 13:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kernel driver claims[edit]

In "Security", the article says: "But the HTTP.SYS kernel-driver delivered better performances at a price. [...]"

Although not mentioned, this is a verbatim copy of the same source [8] as the above issue (gwan.ch). It reflects poor understanding of the user/kernel mode discussion. Windows has always been plagued with the quality of 3rd party device drivers (bluescreens), so moving some of them to user mode is a good thing. However, http.sys is not a device driver, but a part of the Windows kernel. If somebody knows of any reports about http.sys causing kernel crashes, this remark would make sense. Otherwise, this is only a theoretical nitpicker's argument.

I suggest removing this paragraph. Motherofinvention (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc784266(WS.10).aspx lists the quoted paragraph under "choosing the right printer driver", this quote is really misleading. Motherofinvention (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense sentence[edit]

The following sentence makes no sense: "By default IIS 5.1 and ,[11] a default Windows account with 'superuser' rights." - Dougher (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -- Oculus Spectatoris disputioe-mail 22:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No dates?[edit]

Why are there no dates in the history section? That just seems weird. Also, no dates in the version section. Not very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.240.8 (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I'm not seeing anything in the article that appears to be worthy of an advertisement. I have removed the tag from the top of the page; if anyone disagrees, please reply here with what you think needs changing. GSMR (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIS serving malware[edit]

According to Google's study, IIS is twice more likely to serve malware. Google "IIS malware google" without quotes to see references. Thoughts? 117.201.81.93 (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is puffery, that's all. The kind that journalists write all the time. Completely fails Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Fleet Command (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This's according to Znet -
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/google-microsoft-iis-twice-as-often-serving-malware/266
Which points to http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2007/06/web-server-software-and-malware.html.
googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com seems to be the source of all these stories and everyone says this's Google's security blog.
Znet is not a bad source, neither extremest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.81.224 (talk • contribs)
"Bad" or "good" are words that experienced Wikipedians never use out-of-context about a source. ZDNet here is a secondary source. It is the main source, Google Blog, which must be checked for reliability and neutrality of point of view. But to what consequence? What does this research shows? That IIS has a niche market share? Yes, ZDNet says:

Modadugu also offers a glimpse into the geographic location of these malicious servers, highlighting the fact that a lot of dirty IIS servers are in places that are known to be hotbeds for software piracy (China and South Korea).

That corresponds to your previous finding: Apache has a huge market share. That means every reputable website should be using Apache; and that means the rest (the seedy websites) should be using the second popular, IIS. So, as you see, this source only takes us in circle: IIS is the second popular, so not many reputable websites are using it, so it is the not-so-popular...
What else do you want to prove with this source? That IIS is bad or insecure? (I bet Google wanted to make such impression.) Nonsense. Neither IIS nor Microsoft make malware. People who use IIS as web server do.
If you disagree, you can call a third opinion. Fleet Command (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I really don't think if the source is not neutral, it should not be added to wiki pages at all. What we're concerned about is the right facts.
So let's talk about the main source here. I don't see it biased in any way, it blames software piracy for this but it also says IIS serves more malware and there is no puffery involved.
The question here is not about popularity, it's about the amount of IIS servers being used, and the amount of malware it serves worldwide.
About your comment -- "What else do you want to prove with this source? That IIS is bad or insecure? (I bet Google wanted to make such impression.) Nonsense. Neither IIS nor Microsoft make malware. People who use IIS as web server do. "
Experienced wikipedians never talk anything like that, you're saying that I'm trying to prove IIS is bad the same way I calmed Jasper Deng as favoring Microsoft. When I stopped claiming things as such you started claiming it. Whats more, you attacked Google also for no apparent reason -- I think this has to be read by a moderator.
I request you should not do such attacks on people... my point here is to revile the Microsoft facts. For e.g. I've not included my own 'original research' of the fact that I've seen most pirated copies of Windows as not been detected as pirated by Microsoft tools, as a result automatic updates are on and all updates are applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.91.242 (talk • contribs)
Sign your comment kid. And you should read reliable sources once in a while in your life. Secunia says IIS has no security problems. So, if you want to think IIS is insecure, keep it within the boundaries of your own brain. Oh, and Fleet never attacked you. It's you who are attacking him and Jasper. If I were an admin, I'd have kicked you. 91.99.236.23 (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Faithful Bill Gates dogs protecting their master's products keeping their life on the line can never be admins. Yeah, if I call him a faboys, I'm wrong, if he calls be biased, he's right. 117.201.82.12 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite his harsh tone, 91.99.236.23 is right: Your title reads "IIS serving malware"! This clearly shows what you are thinking. Moreover, you wrote this point of view of yours into the article while no consensus is established here. (We don't even have a "third opinion"!) And do I need to mention your recent edit in the article that attempted to disguise dated info as still valid?

As for my attacking Google: When I said "Google", it was a metonymy for "Google's blog post that claims IIS is serving more malware..." I commented on the source (contents), not Google employees (people). Fleet Command (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might be an anti-microsoft -- I admit that but I don't intend to make this article inaccurate. In a similar way, you favoring Microsoft can also be proved. For e.g. You calling Google as a biased source -- Google is a company supporting a lot of opensource development efforts, thus going against Microsoft opinion who calls non-profit projects as 'cancer' for it's own profit. So I can claim you tend to hate Microsoft criticism.
You said "What else do you want to prove with this source? That IIS is bad or insecure? (I bet Google wanted to make such impression.) Nonsense. Neither IIS nor Microsoft make malware. People who use IIS as web server do." You're directly stating Google wants to make an impression that IIS is bad and insecure, this's not a metonymy, it's a direct claim of your opinion which you appear to be enforcing in this article. You should be clear in stating your arguments, we're not writing poetry here.
What consensus? -- you stopped responding, so I adding the article. For a third opinion, I may bring my herd favoring my opinion instead. However that's not required, I can be convinced if you're right.
What can be considered 'dated' here? The Bot doesn't understand what we've written in the article, it's correct to doubt if Microsoft still uses Akamai services and so it's written here. 117.201.82.12 (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well now, coming up on the first inaccuracy in the source:

"For instance the patch for a commonly seen ADODB.Stream exploit is not available to pirated copies of Windows operating systems."

And provides this link for us to verify the assertion:
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?DisplayLang=en&id=4782
And when you click on it: Verification failed – everyone can download this update. Fleet Command (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this issue is cause of unpatched IIS, it's your original research. BTW you're very interested in mixing up source here and there and even doing your own research to prove that IIS is secure. Who're are you to decide a companies research is wrong or right? Also for your kind information, I can download that patch in pirated patched Windows 7 Enterprise and Google too says this malware can be cause of piracy, and so I've added it.
ANY improperly-secured server can be made to serve malware. Given that IIS and Apache have the the lion's share of HTTP servers online between them, it's little wonder that such a claim is made. But give this some thought (and before anyone asks, no, I haven't done any of the research, these are figures pulled out of my own head to demonstrate a point): If Apache and IIS have 97% of the HTTP server market share between them, and someone claims 40% of all malware served on the 'Web comes from improperly-administered IIS servers, doesn't that mean the other 60% comes from improperly-administered Apache servers? The Cliffs Notes™ summary of my point: anyone can claim anything and back it up statistically. All that's needed is proper "massaging" of the statistics. So what I'd offer as a third opinion is to leave such claims out until and unless they can be supported by reference to reliable, verifiable and neutral sources. Please also note that I'm not saying ZDNet is biased or unreliable. I just want more data to support, or refute, such a claim before it's put into the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we will add the fact that Google suggest that these can be cause of piracy. Removing this article is an overkill.
We'll continue, wait.... 117.201.82.12 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is original research going on here... why are you all trying to prove google's research wrong? Google is a $58 Billion company. Who's asking you to do original research of the fact that malware will be served by badly administered servers? As wikipedians, we should just cite sources and rewrite the information in the same sources such that it doesn't looked morphed. Also I can download the patch under Linux.117.201.82.12 (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does "downloading the patch under Linux" have to do with anything? Are you under some severe misconception that Apache only runs on Linux? I've done eight *AMP deployments in the past month which prove THAT an error in thinking. That said, I'm still looking for the verifiable data from a reliable source. All I'm seeing on this Talk page right now is an echo chamber of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. So let's quit playing favorites here, and start working on improving the article instead of continuing the "my OS is better than yours" flame war, mmmkay? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I downloaded the patch on Linux and pirated Windows 7... that basically means there was no piracy checks, and I was trying to prove that. You might like to see my edited section now... Microsoft allows patching of security updates even in pirated Windows versions. So Google was wrong stating it doesn't allow downloading of security patches.
I haven't stated that "More malware is served by IIS", I've stated, "Google clams more malware is served by IIS". Now it's upto the readers to decide what's right and what's wrong. BTW, how did Apache come the to the picture? And who's trying to compare? I'm just reading from reliable sources and placing it's claims here. You should read the currently edited article. If you do not consider Google as reliable source, I fail to understand how's BBC, znet, Microsoft or Yahoo's blog 'reliable'? BTW no one has responded to what I've said. I responded to everyones issue, still it's IDIDNTHEARTHAT? If you think I did not respond to something... please tell.117.201.81.64 (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No response? Is this a consensus (according to FleetCommand?) And why is the article semi protected for no reason?... cause it writes against Microsoft products? 117.201.82.134 (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not try to abuse the word of laws to betray their spirit. We made it explicitly clear that we disagree, your sources are not reliable and your point of view is not neutral and your intentions are fanatical. But you simply refuse to "get the point". It is time to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Currently, I requested article to be locked down, until you get the point. I might take further actions. Fleet Command (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've been putting all sorts of false allegations on me from day one like NPOV. I'm willing to discuss, but instead you're putting false allegations for no apparent reason; I even agreed on many things but you did not on a single thing. For instance, you've not responded to any of my arguments, but instead (again) you do the same thing. You just warn, nothing else. 117.201.176.59 (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative solution to this case[edit]

Well, until now, we were all thinking that this text is written from a non-neutral point of view and must be removed. However, we did not pay attention to the fact that the message has a bit of verifiable truth in it. So, I suggest an alternative: Instead of removing the offending message, we replace it with a neutral version. Here is how:

When we say "There is double the chance that IIS is host malware", what is the message? Well, that is easy, look at the main heading that our dear 117.201.*.*/User:DE logics has written: "IIS is serving malware"! This is no doubt an unverifiable POV message. The fact is that:

  1. According to Google...
  2. ...in the time of research...
  3. ...malware creators preferred to infect or host malware on IIS servers...
  4. ...because IIS computers that failed WGA test could not get updates.

Well, all these are both neutral and verifiable. Why not write these instead? I think it satisfies everyone, right?

Fleet Command (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said double chance, I just put up the statistics as placed by Google. The way you see this as violation of NPOV, I see a lot of other things also as NPOV, why not discuss about those first? Also can you please write your version of IIS serving malware? BTW there're still previous arguments which require responding to (above). DE logics (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you said it, I said "we", which is hypothetical. But you did explicitly say "IIS serving malware" and this message comes from the statistics! And yes, we can insert the version of IIS on which malware creators serve malware. As for the arguments above, first concentrate on the main issue; secondary issues can stay there for a while. Fleet Command (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This heading was created by me to discuss the topic, as a consequence I've answered your current question and so I think you should first respond to the previous arguments to avoid repeating a single thing. 117.201.80.200 (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of IIS[edit]

I'd made an entry in this article stating top sites using IIS -- FleetCommand removed it stating HTTP response headers is not a reliable source.

It's to be noted that all research based on Web Server usage is based on sales or HTTP response headers, the latter being more reliable. If FleetCommand is to be listened to, all references to such research should be stashed cause it's not 'reliable'.

Practically, removing these references is not a good idea. Thus they should be included. Any ideas? 117.201.82.134 (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? I don't remember having done that. Do you have a proof? A diff, for example? Fleet Command (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Information_Services&diff=437221405&oldid=437220937
See your own talk page "Response headers of web servers are not reliable sources because ISP...
117.201.176.59 (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Now it is more like a discussion. As seen in the diff, your source does not even mention anything about response headers. So, before getting down to reliability issue, you should actually give us a source that analyzes response headers and tell which site is using which server. Fleet Command (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Netcraft will be good. e.g. http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=microsoft.com
I guess we've agreed, I'm restoring that part then. 117.201.180.12 (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are talking. Couldn't you do this from the very beginning without torturing us so much? Fleet Command (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it time you stopped disfiguring that article with your sloppy source formatting? It won't hurt if you contribute quality contents once in a while. Fleet Command (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, you violated NPOV, this time in favor of Microsoft! What make the blood of Microsoft websites redder than the other websites to merit writing them to other paragraphs? And what where is your source for conduit.com's using Akamai firewall? (Netcraft just says Akamai owns the network block.) Fleet Command (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think violation of NPOV is purely your point of view. 117.201.92.245 (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if it actually is. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Due and undue weight says:

"... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources ..."

I don't see Netcraft putting a particular emphasis on Microsoft and its websites. But I grant that you are getting better and better in contributing to Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree you're right in this case. My statement sounded like a press reporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.85.120 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had to remove your statement that Microsoft does patch pirated Windows, because it was synthesizing those 3 sources to connotate something for which verification failed. The statement was vague and does not refute Google's statement that SOME patches can't be used on Windows. I would remove the paragraph entirely or condense it due to WP:UNDUE, but we need some more discussion.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 209.48.148.121, 8 July 2011[edit]

IIS Article "However, Microsoft provides security patches to pirated version of Windows." is an opinion

209.48.148.121 (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a statement of fact to me, unless your concern is with the use of the term "pirated", which is used by the cited sources. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pirated Windows and security patches[edit]

Microsoft started talking about restricting security updates even in Jan 2005, but on July 2005, they implemented the new update method, in which (as Microsoft states) "The authentication process was optional until Monday. From now on, it will be required for all software updates except security patches." Any doubts? Also Google claims that IIS serving more malware _might_ be cause of security.

As of the bad English, please provide references to what grammar did I violate. DE logics (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information was correct, but you put it together to connotate something not in either source. I can connotate the opposite: "IIS servers serve twice as many malware HTTP servers, and Microsoft gives security updates to all IIS servers, even those with pirated Windows; however, owners of those servers tend to not install them." Speaking of bad grammar, who's is not correct - it should be whose, and also "number of malware".Jasper Deng (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we'll add the fact that the web administers tend not to install security patches. That's according to Google. DE logics (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what Google says. However, you mustn't put that together with the fact that Microsoft issues security patches for pirated Windows, because that isn't NPOV.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we'll also do that. DE logics (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BUT "however, both versions 6.0 and 7.0 currently have no reported issues with this specific vulnerability" should also be removed for the same reason. DE logics (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather say that the issue was resolved with version 6.0, which is the sort of thing used on articles like Hyper-V.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about when the issue was resolved, we're talking about NPOV, and if this's remove, that should also be removed for the same reason. DE logics (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point here is that a NPOV is achieved by removing "however" or "but".Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both are there in the sentence "however, both versions 6.0 and 7.0 currently have no reported issues with this specific vulnerability.". BTW figuring out what's NPOV and what's not on basis of grammar is not a good idea. DE logics (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is. I'm playing with tone here, which really depends on diction. The current version of the sentence implies that IIS is secure because the bad things are "but" 'd out. The version I'm seeking removes that "but"-out.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proving or attempting to prove IIS secure is not NPOV. I suggest removal of the sentence "however, both versions 6.0 and 7.0 currently have no reported issues with this specific vulnerability." as a whole, "Earlier versions" is good enough to notify about the fact that it no longer persists. DE logics (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about "The issue was not reported in versions 6.0 or later." The issue may still exist according to that sentence, but it may not just as well. The sentence can be interpreted either way.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The statement "Earlier versions" does not specify IIS 6 or later. Thus it's clear "Newer versions" (opposite to "Earlier versions") are not affected. DE logics (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can't be vague though.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This's not vague. If I've state, in 1940s WW2 occurred, it'll be obvious in 2011 WW2 does not persist. DE logics (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Earlier versions" is vague unless you refer to a specific current version. Can you please write out the sentence you imagine?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The versions compromised should be stated instead. DE logics (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be not concise enough.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so this'll be unification of 2 sentences, and so be more concise. Instead of 'earlier versions', we'll write Versions x and y. DE logics (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would make a run-on sentence if you're going to link every version before 6.0.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Un-sourced info violating NPOV[edit]

These -

  • "many of which were culprits in the vulnerabilities of 4.0 and 5.0"
  • "In the current release, IIS 7, the components are provided as modules so that only the required components have to be installed, thus further reducing the attack surface. In addition, security features are added such as Request Filtering, which rejects suspicious URLs based on a user-defined rule set."
  • "Under 6.0 all request handling processes have been brought under a Network Services account with significantly fewer privileges so that should there be a vulnerability in a feature or in custom code it won't necessarily compromise the entire system given the sandboxed environment these worker processes run in. IIS 6.0 also contained a new kernel HTTP stack (http.sys) with a stricter HTTP request parser and response cache for both static and dynamic content."

Is unsourced info which works in favor of IIS. DE logics (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will add source for them tomorrow. I have seen a book from Sybex Press that has has information. Fleet Command (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found two sources for the first item: CERT and Secuina.com. But I don't have time now. Tomorrow. Fleet Command (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question is, is this even right? This's cross references, and violation of NPOV, you get some facts about IIS from Microsoft, and try to prove how IIS is secure by citing from other sources. The same thing I did when I stated security patches are available for pirated copies (NOT versions) of Windows, and now I removed it for the same reason.
Is such sort of cross referencing even wrong? If, it is, half the content of wiki should be destroyed. DE logics (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference with what Fleetcommand is doing and synthesizing. The positive statements are good enough with the current negative statements.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think that was his question at all. He asks whether my providing of sources may have inclinations that IIS is more secure that he thought! Do you see that instead of "referencing" he says "cross-referencing"? He thinks this is a POV act because he has already assumed that IIS is insecure, Microsoft is evil and everyone who says otherwise is in league with this prime evil. Moreover, he thinks that NPOV is saying both good things and bad things about the subject regardless of the weight. I think he must read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Fleet Command (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm having negative point of view, you're having positive point of view over MS, which's not NPOV. Are we going to talk about the issue or (again) we'll divert to another topic? And if there's no response (or in that case out of context response) I'll revert the sentence that I took back about MS proving updates to pirated version of Windows. And I don't think cross references is forbidden in wiki, e.g -
Fact X. Fact Y promoting or demoting fact X.
Removing these will reduce volume of wiki to half. DE logics (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh c'mon dudes! We may bring an admin to cast a vote? DE logics (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's what you connotate. See WP:SYNTH again. Also, Fleetcommand and I are being cautious to be neutral. Oh, and please do not game the system with our policies.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're gaming the system. From day 1, all you're doing is placing WP:* links for no apparent reason. Anyway, lets move on.
Actually, I'm not gaming the system. I remind you again to assume good faith.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That applies to you too. DE logics (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, in Wikipedia we do not cast votes; administrators or otherwise. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia works through consensus. Second, Wikipedia administrators are not kings, queens or ministers. Administrators usually do not involve themselves in discussions; if they do, they usually lose their right to use their special powers in that discussion. However, if you are unsatisfied with our discussions, you can request additional input (not votes) from Mediation Cabal. There other avenues too, like RFC. Fleet Command (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Features section is too not having any sources. DE logics (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna refactor it.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources for items that you contested. Hope you they are enough. I have more sources -- books especially -- but what I don't have is time. Fleet Command (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There're a lot of other sources still missing. That IIS 7 modules one. I would say -- take your time, although you didn't take time to cite and discuss on criticism of the product. DE logics (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already told you twice: I won't embitter a discussion by repeating my own point of view over and over and over again. If you want more input, there are dispute resolution avenues. Fleet Command (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I remove them? DE logics (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has source now. So, no! Fleet Command (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That extensions part? 117.201.82.78 (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted images used[edit]

This article uses copyrighted images (screenshot of MS windows), at least on W7 license terms, it's use is restricted - "Icons, Images and Sounds. While the software is running, you may use but not share its icons, images, sounds, and media. The sample images, sounds and media provided with the software are for your non-commercial use only." 117.201.82.78 (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our policy on this.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Jasper Deng said, Microsoft has officially allowed use of its screenshots; see here. Your interpretation of license agreement is wrong. Furthermore, even copyright-protected items may sometimes be used by unauthorized parties as long as the use meets U.S. fair use policy. Fleet Command (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usage[edit]

The section on worldwide usage of IIS is taken from a single measurement at a single point in time, a time which the reader must check the footnote to discover. I considered just adding that date to the article text, but the bigger question is, should information like that which is always going to vary with time even be quoted in such exact detail in this article? 206.205.52.162 (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are referring to the issue of potentially dated statements. In this case, the section must be dated in a manner described in Wikipedia:As of. As for the question of including them, yes, they should be included even if they are prone to be dated at one time or other. An article with appropriately referenced potentially dated statements is better than an article without them. Fleet Command (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sentence[edit]

Under the Usage heading, we have this mysterious random collection of words: "with it popularity being edged out by nginx hold its strong and gaining second place position." What??? 109.151.89.53 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about IIS 8?[edit]

There is nothing that states IIS8 in the article? IIS 8 is an integral part of Windows 8, I have tried it out --muqman_52 | talk 04:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should have at least an note about Microsoft Personal Web Server[edit]

Should have at least an note about Microsoft Personal Web Server. IIS4 installed PWS4 on Win9x and IIS4 on NT4. Same files, same code. FrontPage 97/98 came with PWS 2.0 on CD but IIS 5.0 in Windows 2000 (and Unix web servers) required install of FrontPage Server Extensions.Shjacks45 (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shjacks45
Sure, we can. Do you have a source?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From my comments on Microsoft Personal Web Server talk page: See (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc723558.aspx) date reference Nov 1997 about PWS 1.0a on Win95. PWS on Win98 CD had a higher 1.x version. Also "Microsoft FrontPage Personal Web Server" (support.microsoft.com/kb/161417/EN-US; support.microsoft.com/kb/161418; ) PWS 2.0 download version and available on FrontPage 97 and FP98 (support.microsoft.com/kb/258635; http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletin/ms99-010); PWS 2.0 was no longer available after Windows ME shipped. It was superior to IIS4 when IIS4 was installed (installer limited) on Win9x.
There are others. Those were the Microsoft Knowledgebase articles I found quickly but they are archived and Microsoft selectively lost a few articles. Hard to find non-Microsoft articles that old on the web without being a "bad" link. I was a Microsoft callcenter escalations engineer from Win95/WinNT, Win98, thru Server2003 beta. Hence my knowledge of weird Microsoft stuff from around the edges. Unfortunately Wikipedia would like independent (non-Microsoft, non-personal experience) verification so I'll need "check my archives". Shjacks45 (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 July 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Information Services → Microsoft Internet Information Services – Most (if not all) multiversion Microsoft product articles start by the word "Microsoft". Also, Internet Information Services is too generic. – EChartre (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: See {{Microsoft Windows components}} for examples of articles on Microsoft products that don't have 'Microsoft' in the title on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree: The development path for IIS was not always in line with Windows versions (will it ever be?). That is why I was talking about multiversion products. Main Windows components and products that have their own version numbers are very frequently preceded by the word "Microsoft" or "Windows" in Wikipedia (i.e. Microsoft SharePoint, Microsoft SQL Server). The forementioned list uses many shortened names that are not the official article names. IMHO, most articles regarding Windows components or Microsoft products should be preceded by "Windows" or "Microsoft". What would be better? Microsoft Notepad, Windows Notepad, Notepad (Windows) or Notepad (software)? The same about Paint and all the other [too] generic names... And it is not only about Microsoft's products (i.e. Android (operating system)). It is just a matter of precision and ownership. Maybe there should be a guideline (see this and this) regarding non trademarked product names? Just to add to the discussion, the official IIS Web site uses the term "Internet Information Services (IIS) for Windows® Server", "Microsoft IIS" or simply "IIS". If we follow the guideline for common names to the letter, the article should then be renamed/moved to "Microsoft IIS". EChartre (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy oppose: Moving this page to the proposed name would precisely (pun intended) constitute a violation of WP:PRECISION. The nominator has made no attempt to justify blatantly violating this particular policy section. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • New proposition: In that case, if we have to use a vernacular but precise enough title, I propose "Microsoft IIS" since "Internet Information Services" formerly "Internet Information Server" is not use frequently in day-to-day communications. It is also in accord with ACRONYMTITLE. EChartre (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong oppose: Contrary to your assertion, that would not be in accordance with WP:ACRONYMTITLE at all: "One general exception to this rule deals with our strong preference for natural disambiguation." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Disagree: I would completely agree with you if the word "Microsoft" was not in front... This is where the strong/natural disambiguation resides. EChartre (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you would make the article title longer - not in terms of characters but in terms of (expanded) words - in order to disambiguate it... for what purpose exactly? What is wrong with the current title from the perspective of the average Wikipedia reader, and what would changing it to this title do to help said reader? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The main reason for this proposal is an "Other stuff exists" discussion, the most hated discussion in Wikipedia. In addition, the proposal is in violation WP:COMMONNAME. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I am not sure I ever saw this software mentioned with "Microsoft" in front of its title. FWIW title "Internet Information Services" is not ambiguous at any rate – there is no other product with similar name, and the software genre strongly prefers different wordings. I would like to see more consistency between titles of the articles anout Microsoft's products, but adding "Microsoft" is exactly what should not be done in this regard. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Usage statistics[edit]

Hi.

I am starting this discussion following a series of edits by DE logics, which I reverted after noticing that it violates WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SYNTH policies. (I am hoping you are seeing this too, DE Logics.) Here is why.

The existing state of affairs is a cross-sectional comparison; it compares what two sources say in the same point in the time. So far so good. But DE Logics's edits knocked this comparison out of sync. In effect, what we have afterwards is just a heap of statistics, which is forbidden by WP:NOTSTATS.

There were other problems too. Initially, in my edit summary I mentioned WP:SYNTH but after seeing a discussion between FleetCommand, Jasper Deng and DE Logics above, I think I retract this one ... for now. However, words like "this month" is a violation of WP:DATED.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 different paragraphs which state stats from 2 different sources. Why do you think this's a comparison? Can you please quote from WP:NOTSTATS, what does this violate? DE logics (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. No, there is no comparison in the two-paragraph version which is your contribution; that's exactly the problem. WP:NOTSTATS says:

As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources

A comparison gives context, albeit a weak one. (I once considered deleting the section altogether.) In the absence of a comparison, however, you are responsible to provide a context, i.e. what's the meaning all this numbers? Particularly, what are "active websites" and why should we care about it? Why is it not a contentious label?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand WP:NOTSTATS does not say anything about comparison. It just says that independent sources should be referenced and rephrased ("explanations") such that it's clear. There's no term "comparison" or anything like that anywhere.
If you disagree, please quote the phrases which say so. Besides the second para was not my contribution. DE logics (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Context", not "comparison". Please read carefully. Anyway, revision 625231648 (made by you) has neither of the two. Are we good? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to verify/clarify what Lisa is talking about for DE Logics, after having read carefully the wp:notstats, because I see the confusion here. While DE pointing out that Lisa did mention comparisons, (s)he also mentioned context. Expanding on why active sites and why they matter, context and comparison are important is due to a creating a language structure that is comfortable for readers as well as relevant and unbiased. You could, for example, site a website that you yourself made and hide under another identity and source yourself but it wouldn't be exactly a site we should or want to care about. DE may have responded hastily, but it does confirm that in the absense of comparison, one needs to provide context and yes, comparison is not often acceptable context in and of itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbakadog (talk • contribs) 01:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we you trying to claim that I'm drawing conclusions (original research) by joining information from multiple sources? I don't think so that's the case. I don't understand why should I compare in the 1st place if all the sources talk about the same article. As of 'active' websites, it can be claimed that 'active' is as per Netcraft's claim. That's clear enough. DE logics (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am not. But per WP:NOTSTATS, you are not allowed to fill the article with nonsensical numbers.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From my, edits can you please quote lines which does not make sense? DE logics (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Your other queries --

Particularly, what are "active websites" and why should we care about it?

Active websites are websites which are visited by human beings or bots and have a ranking. Since we're referring to Netcraft article, users are expected to see their definition of active websites.

Why is it not a contentious label?

Ok, so as per your definition, "Netcraft shows a rising trend in market share for IIS, since 2012." and the whole of features section is not WP:PROMOTION, but anything negative is WP:NOTSTATS. No wonder, you never removed any WP:PROMOTION context. Actually the opposite is done in whole article. First there's a criticism of this Microsoft product, and then there're been a justification added to prove that it's not that bad. You mind none of them. You're violating WP:NPOV
As per wikipedia guidelines as long as the information is relevant to the article and not original research, it should be included. You cant do anything if the product is associated to all negative things. DE logics (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now! You are eluding main questions: The reason for disrupting a cross-sectional comparison and the context for these numbers. You could introduce the numbers without disrupting the cross-sectional comparison, remember? But "number of visits by humans" and "number of visits" are still both numbers. Where is the context? Before revision 625231648, numbers were only there to show a difference and nothing else. After, the section is just full of numbers. Why? Here is why:

...but anything negative is WP:NOTSTATS.

Aha! Right there. So, you actually are trying to display something negative after all, don't you? Just because you think some rising and falling numbers are bad doesn't mean that everybody else thinks so. Even if they did, Wikipedia is not a place for publishing opinion. Only if a reliable source cares to explain exactly why we can reflect that review.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for disrupting a cross-sectional comparison and the context for these numbers. You could introduce the numbers without disrupting the cross-sectional comparison, remember?

Wikipedia does not state a requirement of a cross reference comparison, the same is forbidden. From WP:SYN --

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

But "number of visits by humans" and "number of visits" are still both numbers. Where is the context?

Context is the article. These numbers penetrate to IIS.

After, the section is just full of numbers. Why? Here is why:

Because Wikipedia does not forbid me to do so. Regardless of my intention, it does not break any rules to exclude from inclusion. My intention has nothing to do with you or Wikipedia. The extra information is.

Aha! Right there. So, you actually are trying to display something negative after all, don't you?

Please don't explain to contributers what's right and what's wrong. We're not doing classes here. Anymore of this crap (which includes any more irrelevant responses from you) and I'll ask for Administrator intervention after again adding my edits. Please strictly talk in terms Wikipedia guidelines.

Just because you think some rising and falling numbers are bad doesn't mean that everybody else thinks so. Even if they did, Wikipedia is not a place for publishing opinion.

When did I place my opinion in my edits? Can you please quote?

Only if a reliable source cares to explain exactly why we can reflect that review.

Can you please clarify this? DE logics (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is "cross-sectional", not "cross-reference"; and both are allowed. WP:SYNTH forbids synthesizing. Second, your entire message above consists of refusal to get to point and a threat. The first step in a discussion is to acknowledge a problem, not denying it like a three-years-old. You are even lying to myself about what I said! (Very pointless.) Therefore, I will henceforth refuse to participate in this discussion any further until the existence of a dispute is acknowledged.
Concerned,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is "cross-sectional", not "cross-reference"; and both are allowed.

Very well I understand that (and wholeheartedly agree), but I also asked --

Wikipedia does not state a requirement of a cross reference comparison

Second, your entire message above consists of refusal to get to point and a threat. The first step in a discussion is to acknowledge a problem, not denying it like a three-years-old.

Reporting to an administrator is a threat? Refusal to get the point? You've not responded to any of these problems --

From what I understand WP:NOTSTATS does not say anything about comparison. It just says that independent sources should be referenced and rephrased ("explanations") such that it's clear. There's no term "comparison" or anything like that anywhere.

If you disagree, please quote the phrases which say so.

To which you responded --

"Context", not "comparison". Please read carefully.

This does not answer the concern. I've asked this question a total of 3 times including this one --

I don't understand why should I compare in the 1st place if all the sources talk about the same article.

To which you responded --

No. I am not. But per WP:NOTSTATS, you are not allowed to fill the article with nonsensical numbers.

Which again does not answer the question Why should I compare? Does this not come into WP:IDONTHEAR?
Besides I already responded to that question before with --

Context is the article. These numbers penetrate to IIS.

Your next concern.

You are even lying to myself about what I said! (Very pointless.)

Where? Can you please quote?
Yet after all this, if you refuse to engage in this discussion, I'll have to again add the edits with more stats from different providers in separate paragraphs, which's perfectly fair. DE logics (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In a similar way that I've done, can you please quote concerns which I've not answered? Since you're blaming me of WP:IDONTHEAR. You've to do it someday. Cause today it's IIS, next it'll be Windows article, then .NET... and all Microsoft articles. Cause most of these sound like WP:PROMOTION — Preceding unsigned comment added by DE logics (talk • contribs) 04:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To bring more of your WP:IDONTHEAR forward, I'ld like to address your false accusation of WP:FORUM on me, which I responded with --

When did I place my opinion in my edits? Can you please quote?

Which you've not responded yet. DE logics (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User does not respond. Adding edits. DE logics (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:DE logics isn't here to write an encyclopedia; he is here to propagate anti-Microsoft hatred and attack Wikipedia users. It was the case three years ago (see above: 1, 2, 3) and it is the case now. Wikipedia is not a battlefield.
@DE logics: If you expect replies, try negotiation instead of personal attacks.
Fleet Command (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the frivolous messages of DE logics, this one takes the cake: "This does not answer the concern. I've asked this question a total of 3 times including this one-- 'I don't understand why should I compare in the 1st place if all the sources talk about the same article.'" And received a response each time. (Seriously, read carefully.) The answer is: You don't have to compare; but (1) you don't get to delete the existing comparison without a reason and (2) your contribution consisting of statistics must add meaning/interpretation/context to these stats by citing a reliable secondary source. Chewbakadog wrote a whole paragraphs about this. Fleet Command (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try and maintain the comparison and introduce the additional details about the Netcraft statistics.

your contribution consisting of statistics must add meaning/interpretation/context to these stats by citing a reliable secondary source.

Where does Wikipedia guidelines state there needs to be 2 sources? Any why does adding a second source add meaning/interpretation/context to these stats? If the meaning/interpretation/context is not clear, it should be rephrased instead.

User:DE logics isn't here to write an encyclopedia; he is here to propagate anti-Microsoft hatred and attack Wikipedia users.

Does Wikipedia state I should not add anti-Microsoft content to articles? Yes, I'm here on a propaganda like everyone else. User:Codename Lisa is having a propaganda or promoting Microsoft products (see discussion above), I'm having a propaganda of demoting them by adding negative information cited from reliable sources which fully complies Wikipedia guidelines. In fact you defending User:Codename Lisa's actions puts under the same bracket.

@DE logics: If you expect replies, try negotiation instead of personal attacks.

Can you please point out from which of WP:WIAPA do these attacks come into? I may not come into any of those, but your actions come under --

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.

You realize you maybe banned for this? DE logics (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too long; didn't read. Actually, read the last sentence; it was a threat. Non-collegial. Fleet Command (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting administrative action. DE logics (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet Information Services. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet Information Services. 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:

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) 03:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Internet_Information_Services&oldid=1207728500"