Talk:Microsoft Development Center Norway

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Norway

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Official Name and logo

Should the page title and company name reflect the new official name, "FAST, a Microsoft® subsidiary"? There is also a new logo on fastsearch.com which should replace the old. Janhoy (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Share price crash

Would the vandal or PR person removing information from these pages please stop. It is a matter of record that FAST had a share price crash of 28% when they made a statement that they had needed to change their accounting approaches. The press release is on the company site. This is a material piece of information about the company. Added by User:86.137.204.98 21:13, 2 August 2007

Reversion War

This page is currently subject to a prolonged edit war. Specifically, the following paragraph is added, deleted, added, and deleted again:

On July 30th 2007 FAST announced a collapse in revenue of 40% due to changes in financial controls on revenue recognition. It had been forecasting $55M of Q2 revenue and profitability, in a statement on the company's website it revealed revenue would collapse to $35M and the company would become unprofitable. According to the company it had been recognizing revenue without signed contracts using Memoranda of Understanding MOUs. The shares fell 28% to hit a three year low. This and other issues around lack of customer payment were raised by Goldman Sachs in a report June 2007 by Mowalla and FAST is now the subject of an onging investigation by the Norwegian financial regulator as revealed in Finansavisen (Norway's equivalent of the FT) on the 6th of August 2007.

Could the relevant parties please familiarise themselves with Wikipedia's consensus policy as well as the dispute resolution process. If the edit war continues, protection of the page may have to be requested until consensus is achieved. Ablehr 19:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's been no comments or page edits after last edit, related to edit war paragraph and last edit took place 5 days ago I propose to remove neutrality dispute mark. Peter Vasilyev 07:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (not that I ever have claimed its neither neutral nor unneutral) Arsenikk 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree also. (I'm the one who added the original ReversionWar tag that was since decomissioned, thus the current POV tag.) Ablehr 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the facts above are supported by http://www.fast.no/news.aspx?m=329&amid=10146 which gives a statement from fast http://www.oslobors.no/ob/aksje_interaktiv_graf?languageID=1&p_instrid=ticker.ose.FAST&p_period=1D&menu2show=1.1.2.6 showing the shareprice effect. I assume the revert vandal may work for the company's PR department as thse facts are public knowledge. Added by User:86.141.169.167 20:09, 7 August 2007

Removed ReversionWar tag as parties seem to have cooled down. Ablehr 12:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parties have not cooled down and seem uninterested in achieving consensus through discussion here. ReversionWar no longer available, adding POV tag. Ablehr 06:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the warring parties, who seem to have been doing a lot of blanking, is the subject company itself. Specifically 62.113.137.5 [1] and 65.217.203.5 [2]. I thought that was interesting in light of recent revelations [3] about similar behaviour. RoboDove 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm just trying to make article sound more neutral because to my mind now style of article in too negative. This is just question of wording and not facts (I've changed no facts in prev edits). Edits from ip 62.113.137.5 are mine ones. Peter Vasilyev 07:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Rolling back edits by 86.129.186.158 since they are just returning page to old controversial state and there are a lot of new information added by Arsenikk. Peter Vasilyev 07:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Vasilyev (talk • contribs).

You cannot have events from this month or week under a history heading, these are current and indeed unfolding. I fear the company is trying to edit out what is an importent set of facts which are well cited and highly relevant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.186.158 (talk) 07:35, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

My thought is that history section is about all things that happen with company, regardless of time, they took place. Other section should be about products, clients etc. And putting information about recent events in history section is not an attempt to somehow hide events, but it's about structuring information in articles.

Look, how developed company articles are organized: Dell, IBM. Apple_Inc.. All of them have History section that contains information about past and current events.

That's why I think that putting recent info in History section is correct and that's why I'm reverting your change now.

With best regards, Peter. —Comment was added by Peter Vasilyev (talk • contribs).

I totaly agree with Peter, using a history header is just the way things are written on Wikipedia. Remember, what happened yesterday is also history. Also, even if you do disagree with part of my edit, please refrain from undoing the entire edit. And for crying out loud, I do not work for FAST, never have; I don't even know anyone who does. Please be civil enough to not accuse everyone making a copyedit on Wikipedia of working at the public relations section of a company. Arsenikk 08:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now refenced the inline links per guidelines for Wikipedia. There is no change of content, just esthetics and ease of refence. Arsenikk 09:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

86.147.116.112 is insisting on not being neutral, adding their point of view, adding back the unverifiable blog and not keeping respecting the format.Ronpop —Preceding comment was added at 15:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything outstanding from this issue? - Roy Boy 01:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion war continues

The reversion war continues, added POV tag. I removed the following from the article as discussions and dispute resolution should take place here and not on the article itself:

NOTE: This page is being edited by 65.217.203.5 (please see history) which is an IP address registered to the company, despite denial by the poster in history of working for Fast.

I would like to make clear that there is no Wikipedia policy in place that dictates that employees of a company cannot contribute to that company's Wikipedia entry. Rather, regardless of who they work for, every contributor must comply with Wikipedia's consensus and neutral point of view policies. Could the relevant parties therefore please familiarise themselves with Wikipedia's consensus policy as well as the dispute resolution process. Ablehr 08:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the less significant players"?

Is there a source for this statement? All analysts reports that I am aware of place FAST at the top end of enterprise search vendor rankings. And the recent Microsoft purchase at $1.2 Billion seems to make this statement nonsensical. Ray3055 (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole editing war brings a lot of insight about the competition in the search market. Like most Norwegians I have very strong feelings for FAST as a Norwegian company and it is clear for anyone watching that their main competitor Autonomy Corporation like to mention the growth pain and problems in FAST during the last years. For anyone with insight in the search market it seems obvious that this is because they are loosing momentum and customer to FAST. After Microsoft Corporation announced it's offer we have seen no badmouthing from Autonomy - probably because they finally realize that FAST within Microsoft will become the strongest and dominant player within the Enterprise Search Market. As a closing remark try searching for "happy customer" at Autonomy's website ;-)

Given the recent criminal charges filed, along with the wide disparity between stated and re-stated earnings, it's hard to believe that anyone could stand behind this kind of pro-Fast message. It doesn't seem to matter whether it's in reference to Autonomy, or any of the other vendors in the search space, Fast is clearly in a tight spot. 75.31.246.47 (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Is" or "was"?

Shouldn't the article say that FAST "was" a company now that it is a part of Microsoft's SharePoint division? Disclaimer: I previously worked in FAST. --Bjornte (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"major ongoing investigation"

The investigation ended long ago. Time for an update? --Bjornte (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is completely out of date

This product is now called "FAST Search Server 2010 for SharePoint"^[1]^[2] and is owned by Microsoft^[3]. FAST Search Server 2010 for SharePoint is the most full-featured of all the search products offered by Microsoft for SharePoint and connected systems.^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkevinparker (talk • contribs) 03:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected that name to this article. - Roy Boy 01:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

NPOV removed

The article has been substantially changed since 2007, I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} or better yet {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - Roy Boy 01:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=7905EF56-BD97-46BE-B961-3DC00843A85A
Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 00:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fast Search & Transfer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080610110235/http://www.forbes.com:80/markets/feeds/afx/2007/08/08/afx3997901.html to http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/08/08/afx3997901.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Company name as of 2010 is "Microsoft Development Center NorwayMicrosoft Development Center Norway"

The company changed its name in 2010 to Microsoft Development Center Norway. I have moved the article to the correct name, changed the first sentence in the article and changed from was to is as the company still exists in Norway. The article probably needs some work to show that although the company changed it's name it is still going strong with a new name. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 17:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft Development Center Norway. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft Development Center Norway. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FAST ESP?

the article references FAST ESP multiple times, but it doesn't seem to have an article. Should the links be removed?

LambdaC98 (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://sharepoint.microsoft.com/en-us/product/capabilities/search/Pages/Fast-Search.aspx

[2] ttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee781286.aspx

[3] ttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/enterprisesearch/ee441234

[4] ttp://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-cms/how-search-has-improved-in-sharepoint-2010-007161.php

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]