This article has useful information, but aren't there article editors at SQL Server Central that review articles before they are posted for public consumption? The grammar is this article is very stilted, and in some cases completely inaccurate, making it difficult to read. While I certainly don't fault the author for not being totally fluent in English, I do think it reflects badly on the quality of the site. Even a cursory read-through should have resulted in the vast majority of mistakes being fixed by an editor.
Kathi must have read my post before she wrote her article on the Access Upsizing Wizard . She explains the problem I ran into and it looks like Access allows dates before 1753 and SQL Server does not. Kathi's article is at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/kKellenberger/accesstosqlservertheupsizingwizard.asp.
Very sorry for my porr english. I try to minize those in my next articles. Thank you very much for the comments. Its really helps me
No need to apologize, we all appreciate your effort and contribution to the community. I think Dave was a little harsher than he intended and his criticism was primarily aimed at our generous hosts. I think we need to step back and consider what has gone into building this community and give credit to our hosts for all the time and money they have put into this so that we can all benefit at no cost to us. I am sure that if some folks want to volunteer their time to do the proofreading the SQLServerCentral guys woud love the help.
Thanks Dinesh, keep the articles flowing!