none
Issues with multiple people editing RRS feed

  • Question

  • TechNet Wiki

    Could Peter Geelen please be asked to refrain from making unnecessary and even counter-productive styling changes to my postings.  They have consistently been unhelpful.  Moreover, he persists in making these changes against my repeatedly stated wishes.   For example, with regard to the posting SharePoint 2010: Case Study on How to Remove Project-related Missing Dependencies when Upgrading to 2013, of the 45 revisions of this posting to date, 35 are attributable to Peter.  Twice I have had to revert his lengthy changes because they caused significant content to no longer be visible and presented inconsistent content to be displayed over various paragraphs and tables, and twice he has made them again. I marvel at the amount of time that he is spending on tinkering with HTML on just this one article alone.  It seems to me that there are many other  postings that could much more benefit from his attention than mine.

    I have absolutely no difficulty with community members making changes that add content, improve arguments, identify problems in logic or content, or otherwise improve the content and logic of the posting.  This a peer-reviewed resource and I welcome such peer-review to improve the content being delivered to community members and also to improve my own knowledge.  However, if a posting generally conforms to the TechNet Wiki formatting guidelines and is not egregiously poorly formatted then it seems to me that any styling changes are a matter of personal preference, and, in such cases, it seems to me that the Author's preference should be respected.  When I review other member's postings, I do not focus on superficial aspects of postings such as style and format.  My focus is on content and knowledge transfer to other SharePoint administrators.  

    I have come across postings that display considerable scope and opportunity for improvement in their formatting and styling.  I don't believe that my postings fall into that category.  Over 20 years ago, I wrote the original MSNBC technical system guides, RADIUS manual and others and I continue to write technical guides and content to the present.  It is unproductive to have to monitor his unusual degree of attention to my postings and revert them.  Could he please be asked to refrain from making any more changes to my postings.  I believe Peter's talent's could be more usefully applied elsewhere.  


    Monday, March 11, 2019 2:39 PM

Answers

  • Richard is right.

    what you don't see, is what you don't know.

    Keep in mind that the TechNet wiki is an old lady, which has some features and limitations that cannot always keep up with the new demand. Some of them are complex layout, wide table layout and complex article structures.

    Furthermore you're using floating layout and encapsulated TOC, which has very bad reputation and bad habbits on the TNWiki, which are very likely to break at next edit. 

    [Did you check your articles for <br> and <pre> tags? Another pair of usual suspects, breaking wiki articles...And do you always start your header count with H1? (No)]

    In essence, that's the issue with your article, too many indents, tables blocking the wide screen use, complex colors that override the default layout.

    But your article has some very useful content, so it's really worth the effort to get it working and to keep it online.

    And the custom colors in your article are important, so we needed to find a custom solution to make it work.
    That even meant I had to bypass the default table layout/coloring.

    So I have been troubleshooting this to make your article work., in a painstakingly proces, step by step.

    Paragraph by paragraph.

    Table by table.

    … To make the display work, and maximizing the usability of the document.

    But you can't see the work in the back ground, right.

    I can understand it's quite frustrating to see the updates count go up in high speed, but I'm using various updates and tests to compare to get the best out of it.

    I have been working on the TechNet Wiki for almost 10 years, so I know damn well how the old lady dances.
    Having 43000+ edits says enough.

    And this article is really putting the Wiki engine to it's limits. It looks very simple, but in fact it's damn complex.

    But what you don't see, what you can't know.

    And when you revert articles because you think it's better, you make it worse.
    Because you inject the wrong content again and I need to start over again.

    First of all I have been trying to keep the article structure to the most simple indents, by using headers and paragraphs instead of multiple indents.
    Because indents decrease the usable page width, generating a lot of white space at the left.

    Furthermore, I would highly encourage you to have a bit of a read on the Wiki guidelines and best practices.

    Keep in mind that on a Wiki, it's a community effort. The original author does get the credits of his work, but (s)he is NOT the owner.

    There are some rules and guidelines to make the articles consistent and usable for the community. 
    More over, these rules and guidelines are sourced from the Wikipedia, while we keep them up to speed with day to day practices and issues.

    There are very good reasons to keep some of the layouts to a minimum and to remove some of the layouts.
    Over the years, the Telerik layout nr 4 has proven to get the best results, so we stick close to that, to make it easy.

    And my contact details are in my profile, better contact me directly if there are any issues.

    Because it's more complex than you can imagine.
    And I haven't even covered the work that the technical support team has done to keep the old lady running. 

    The Wiki is not a technical document management system, it's not like a MSNBC technical system guide and it's not like a RADIUS documentation. I wish it would.

    And I'm not focusing on superficial edits, but consistency, stability and usability... (What do you think about killing 20000 spam articles?)

    It's not always a popular job, you've just proven it.

    But someone needs to police the system to keep it up and running. 

    So I do understand your frustration, but it's time to spin down and go on.
    And I'm certainly going to visit and update your articles to optimize them. Just like any other of the 27000+ articles, independent of any user.


    Peter Geelen - MVP Enterprise Mobility (Identity and Access) (user page)

    [If a post helps to resolve your issue, please click the "Mark as Answer" of that post or click "Vote as helpful" button of that post. By marking a post as Answered or Helpful, you help others find the answer faster. ]





    Wednesday, March 20, 2019 12:17 AM
    Owner

All replies

  • I checked the HTML of that article, and it has unsupported style statements. This indicates to me that you are using an add-in or third party software to edit the article. When I see this, I generally remove the unsupported HTML, as it just makes it more difficult to fix problems that can only be fixed in the HTML (TOC, headings, colors, tables). My guess is that Peter might be doing similar work. But in my experience, removing the unsupported HTML, which always seems to be at the beginning (and sometimes makes up 90% of the HTML), never affects the Wiki at all. So Peter must be trying to fix something else.

    Richard Mueller - MVP Enterprise Mobility (Identity and Access)

    Monday, March 11, 2019 3:30 PM
    Moderator
  • What are the unsupported style statements?
    Monday, March 11, 2019 4:54 PM
  • Sorry, when I copied the HTML I hit Save instead of Cancel by mistake. But I made no change. You can revert if you want.

    There is not much in your article. Usually I see much more. But I found this at the top of your Wiki, in the HTML editor.

    <style type="text/css">
                <!--
    dt
    	{font-weight:bold}
    .myTable
    	{border-collapse:collapse;
    	border:1px dotted black}
    .myTable th
    	{background-color:#000;
    	color:white;
    	width:50%}
    .myTable td, .myTable th
    	{padding:5px;
    	border:1px solid #000}
    h3
    	{font-weight:bold}
    h2
    	{margin-bottom:15px}
    -->
            </style>

    If this has any affect on the Wiki, it would be a first. Using the editor features for fonts, styles, etc., never adds HTML at the beginning, in my experience.


    Richard Mueller - MVP Enterprise Mobility (Identity and Access)


    Monday, March 11, 2019 5:09 PM
    Moderator
  • Thanks Richard.  Is a CSS style section not supported for Microsoft TechNet Wiki postings?  So far, I've found that CSS settings defined in a manually-entered style section render successfully in Chrome and FF (latest editions) and IE 11.
    Tuesday, March 12, 2019 12:43 PM
  • I honestly do not know to what extent css is supported in TechNet Wiki articles. But the only Wiki articles I have ever seen with any css are those with tables created using some Telerik functionality. I believe the Wiki platform was created by Telerik, so this may result from using the table wizard in the design editor. I have never used it and simply use standard HTML to specify my tables. But the HTML apparently inserted by the table wizard looks like below (in part).

            <style id="telerik-reTable-4" type="text/css">
                <!--
    .telerik-reTable-4
    	{border-collapse:collapse;
    	border:solid 0px;
    	font-family:Tahoma}
    .telerik-reTable-4 tr.telerik-reTableHeaderRow-4
    	{border-width:1.0pt 1.0pt 3.0pt 1.0pt;
    	margin-top:0in;
    	margin-right:0in;
    	margin-bottom:10.0pt;
    	margin-left:0in;
    	line-height:115%;
    	font-size:11.0pt;
    	font-family:"Calibri" ,"sans-serif";
    	background:#4F81BD;
    	padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
    	color:#FFFFFF}
    .telerik-reTable-4 td.telerik-reTableHeaderFirstCol-4
    	{padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt}
    .telerik-reTable-4 td.telerik-reTableFooterEvenCol-4
    	{border-width:1pt;
    	border-color:#4F81BD;
    	border-bottom-style:solid;
    	padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt}
    -->
            </style>
    

    This HTML is near the tables. The HTML I delete is always at the top of the article, taking up from 60 to 95% of the HTML. I used to check before and after removing it and never saw any difference.


    Richard Mueller - MVP Enterprise Mobility (Identity and Access)

    Saturday, March 16, 2019 2:11 PM
    Moderator
  • Richard is right.

    what you don't see, is what you don't know.

    Keep in mind that the TechNet wiki is an old lady, which has some features and limitations that cannot always keep up with the new demand. Some of them are complex layout, wide table layout and complex article structures.

    Furthermore you're using floating layout and encapsulated TOC, which has very bad reputation and bad habbits on the TNWiki, which are very likely to break at next edit. 

    [Did you check your articles for <br> and <pre> tags? Another pair of usual suspects, breaking wiki articles...And do you always start your header count with H1? (No)]

    In essence, that's the issue with your article, too many indents, tables blocking the wide screen use, complex colors that override the default layout.

    But your article has some very useful content, so it's really worth the effort to get it working and to keep it online.

    And the custom colors in your article are important, so we needed to find a custom solution to make it work.
    That even meant I had to bypass the default table layout/coloring.

    So I have been troubleshooting this to make your article work., in a painstakingly proces, step by step.

    Paragraph by paragraph.

    Table by table.

    … To make the display work, and maximizing the usability of the document.

    But you can't see the work in the back ground, right.

    I can understand it's quite frustrating to see the updates count go up in high speed, but I'm using various updates and tests to compare to get the best out of it.

    I have been working on the TechNet Wiki for almost 10 years, so I know damn well how the old lady dances.
    Having 43000+ edits says enough.

    And this article is really putting the Wiki engine to it's limits. It looks very simple, but in fact it's damn complex.

    But what you don't see, what you can't know.

    And when you revert articles because you think it's better, you make it worse.
    Because you inject the wrong content again and I need to start over again.

    First of all I have been trying to keep the article structure to the most simple indents, by using headers and paragraphs instead of multiple indents.
    Because indents decrease the usable page width, generating a lot of white space at the left.

    Furthermore, I would highly encourage you to have a bit of a read on the Wiki guidelines and best practices.

    Keep in mind that on a Wiki, it's a community effort. The original author does get the credits of his work, but (s)he is NOT the owner.

    There are some rules and guidelines to make the articles consistent and usable for the community. 
    More over, these rules and guidelines are sourced from the Wikipedia, while we keep them up to speed with day to day practices and issues.

    There are very good reasons to keep some of the layouts to a minimum and to remove some of the layouts.
    Over the years, the Telerik layout nr 4 has proven to get the best results, so we stick close to that, to make it easy.

    And my contact details are in my profile, better contact me directly if there are any issues.

    Because it's more complex than you can imagine.
    And I haven't even covered the work that the technical support team has done to keep the old lady running. 

    The Wiki is not a technical document management system, it's not like a MSNBC technical system guide and it's not like a RADIUS documentation. I wish it would.

    And I'm not focusing on superficial edits, but consistency, stability and usability... (What do you think about killing 20000 spam articles?)

    It's not always a popular job, you've just proven it.

    But someone needs to police the system to keep it up and running. 

    So I do understand your frustration, but it's time to spin down and go on.
    And I'm certainly going to visit and update your articles to optimize them. Just like any other of the 27000+ articles, independent of any user.


    Peter Geelen - MVP Enterprise Mobility (Identity and Access) (user page)

    [If a post helps to resolve your issue, please click the "Mark as Answer" of that post or click "Vote as helpful" button of that post. By marking a post as Answered or Helpful, you help others find the answer faster. ]





    Wednesday, March 20, 2019 12:17 AM
    Owner
  • Stephan,

    First of all, I think your SharePoint article is magnificent. Not only is it incredibly well crafted, but it gets at the heart of troubleshooting issues. This is exactly the kind of content where the Wiki shines... it needs to come from experts like you, and it needs to be in a platform like the Wiki.

    I apologize for the platform that we have. It is horrible on bullets, tables, code snippets, and CSS code. And your amazingly intricate article contains all our weaknesses. 

    On top of all those weaknesses, we also have weaknesses on fixing the issues and getting changes submitted. As a result, it might take many more attempts/edits to get the weaknesses addressed than there should be. 

    First of all, all the edits Peter made should not have been needed. We should have a simplified editor that forces formatting in a way that it can format correctly, that won't cause breaks (via bugs our system has), and that forces tables to be the optimal width.

    We are currently planning a future version of the Wiki that will address all these limitations. 

    I personally have written over 500 of these articles, and I've had Peter edit many of them to an incredible amount of detail (in very similar numbers that you're describing).

    However, Peter knows the limitations of the platform very intimately. I believe he was removing some code on the back end that would have made the article impossible to maintain. I believe he was also removing code that would have saved us from lame bugs that could corrupt your article (on our poor platform). I believe it is an improvement in the long run, even if it was frustrating to have someone fiddling with it so much.

    And, again, I'm very sorry that our platform has so many issues. We are actively planning to fix the issues.

    You might not agree with Peter's edits, and I understand. I cannot convince you that Peter's edits were valuable in the long run, although I'm sure they are. (Because I've seen it hundreds of times... it's really a series of bugs relating to tables, bullets, indentations, etc.) 

    The bottom line is simple:

    1. If our platform was better, we wouldn't need the edits and it wouldn't require as many edits. (Part of the problem is the way the platform and editor are set up, which requires lots of small tweaks rather than one consolidated update.) We are actively working on this problem.
    2. Peter is done. He recognized how much frustration it has caused. He didn't intend to frustrate you. He has good intentions, and he was trying to help. It is our opinion (his, mine, Richard's, etc.) that he was helping, in the long run. But even if we disagree that the edits were helpful, I think we can agree that his intention was to help. That's also why he didn't communicate first... he was making fixes to work around our bugs. He wasn't actually making changes to your content (for example, he didn't rewrite one of your paragraphs or anything like that). So, again, good or bad, right or wrong, he's done. He hasn't touched the article since March 10th, and he has no intention to do so. 

    So I apologize for the platform and that we have to do stupid little edits like this to prevent great articles like yours from becoming corrupt. 

    You asked that Peter stops. He immediately stopped.

    I also appreciate your words on the top. I think you did a good job at being fair and respectful, while still telling your perspective. I do appreciate that.

    And, I want to thank you for your article. That's exactly the kind of impacting content that's perfect for the Wiki and will help unblock thousands of our customers.

    Thank you, Stephan!


    Ed Price, Azure Development Customer Program Manager (Blog, Small Basic, Wiki Ninjas, Wiki)

    Answer an interesting question? Create a wiki article about it!


    Thursday, April 4, 2019 5:28 AM
    Owner
  • Thanks Ed.  Appreciate your informative comments.  Spirited constructive debate helps illuminate things. I have no problem with the technical matters and have no problem with dedicated persons undertaking to resolve them.  'Appreciate their commitments.   I would just like to be a part of the loop. 

    At Peter's suggestion, I have undertaken to study more carefully on the technical aspects of the TechNet Wiki.  'Appreciate Microsoft making this excellent resource available to those who support Microsoft-related technology.  This knowledge base has helped me resolve numerous problems for users and greatly improve my knowledge and ability in Microsoft-related technologies.

    Thursday, April 4, 2019 2:39 PM
  • This knowledge base has helped me resolve numerous problems for users and greatly improve my knowledge and ability in Microsoft-related technologies.

    It's awesome to read this😃

    Stephan, please join Microsoft TechNet Wiki group on Facebook, and remember to publish there any article that you write. Other people could help you improve the article, especially in issues related to the format of the content.


    signature   Ronen Ariely
     [Personal Site]    [Blog]    [Facebook]    [Linkedin]

    Wednesday, June 5, 2019 11:21 PM
    Moderator