User talk:SteveLoughran

Welcome!

Hello SteveLoughran, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Amazon S3 / Web Services

I appreciate your contributions to Amazon S3 and Amazon Web Services, but without verifiable sources they are not appropriate. If you can find other sources to back up your statements, please cite them; otherwise, this is material that is better suited to an outside blog or forum than Wikipedia. White 720 (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Before I added the S3 content there was nothing but advertising links. Some of the content there may need citation, in which case it could be moved to the talk page. Deletion is overkill. There's no point blogging it as Wikipedia doesnt believe blogs as sources of valid data. The trace of the behaviour on a GET of a nonexistent page is not OR, it is documentation of a replicable experiment. Everything needed to copy it is there, go type telnet on a port. Therefore it is self-citing.

Overall, I'm disappointed that you felt the need to delete the information from S3, not even move it to the talk pages. It doesn't make me motivated to improve the article. What was there was nothing, what you have left it with is nothing, what it used to be was informative. Now, given that you work for Amazon, perhaps you could correct its inaccuracies, by moving the information to the talk page and improving it there, rather than deleting it entirely.

SteveLoughran (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been moved to Talk:Amazon_S3#OR_removed_from_page. There are plenty of blogs, official and otherwise, that talk about Amazon S3's technical details. That Wikipedia doesn't consider some blogs authoritative is immaterial. I removed the section because it does not fit with Wikipedia's policy on original research, specifically that synthesizing material based on other sources is not permitted. If you can find other credible sources to back up your data, be they blogs, books, or other verifiable and reliable media, please cite them in your reinsertion of this section.

Although you have provided information that is plainly available (e.g. results of telnet sessions) you did not indicate why this information is notable. Most of what you wrote, such as the section about catch-all fourth-level domains, is common among Internet services and has not been commented upon by sources enough to assert its notability. White 720 (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Cloud computing

Hi Steve,

I have been hard at work overhauling the cloud computing article and suspect that you may be interested in the modifications given your commentary on the talk page. Your constructive criticisms are of course welcomed.

You may also like to check out my recent article The future of cloud computing - an army of monkeys?

Cheers,

samj (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for touching base and helping out. I've just finished setting up [1], initially for less notable and verifiable topics and/or original research... this might be useful for working out some of this stuff if need be. Regarding the main cloud computing article, I rather like that it is general because as soon as you start narrowing it down you start treading on toes... some want to go down the grid path... others taking an internet focus... utility computing... etc. but these IMO are all details. It won't be a broad definition that will kill off cloud computing; rather pigeon holing (as was the case with grid, which now mainly refers to HPC tasks).

Thanks also for addressing conflict of interests. I'd like to think I'm reasonably free of conflicts myself as I spend most of my time thinking about this from a user-centric perspective (eg through the eyes of cloud computing users; often my large enterprise clients but also being part of the free software community with debian etc. from the grassroots too).

samj (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Aster

Thanks for letting me know, the article hasn't changed at all as far as I can tell. Still a COI vanity page, so I took it to AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aster Data Systems. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

DLL

I saw your contributions to Dynamic-link library and was wondering if you might have the technical knowledge to be able to assist me with suggestions as to how I can fix a DLL error on my computer? Handicapper (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Test Automation

This is the page for listing automation tools. Is there another that I'm not aware of? One thing just to note: I said this was an open source product. I have found out it's a Microsoft product. I don't know why we should prevent people from finding it: the more stable an application is, the better it is for testers and eventually users. At least leave it linked on the Visual Studio page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There's the List of unit testing frameworks, which is the closest we have to a directory listing. Without that every page on testing drowns under the many, many test frameworks that people have. And that's without the tricky things like running JUnit on 200 machines courtesy of Hadoop, and the tests that test that that works... After pulling the entries I added a comment to the poster saying "Put it on that list". If you want to keep it under visual studio -which is probably the closest place for it, then yes, do that. SteveLoughran (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review

First, Cato does do peer review for their publications. Please note they are rated as one of the top 10 private research organizations in the world. Second, peer review does not stop junk from being published as almost all peer review is being done my friends of the writer or adherents to their theories. Third, after reading many articles on urban sprawl and smart growth, I've noticed there is plenty of advocacy organizations being used as sources for dubious empirical claims. To quote one Cato scholar: "simply dismissing an entire category of scholarly institutions due to a misplaced faith in the impartiality of the other categories is an epistemological error." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.51.171 (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but peer review is better than unreviewed. Also, I don't do traffic planning, I just happen to encounter things like Queue Theory, Game Theory, some graph theory, etc. To say "obvious really" when defending a statement like "two lanes is better than one" may seem obvious to you, but once you look at the maths behind things its less clear. There's turbulence, behaviour under load, how people merge lanes, etc. I like hard data and good simulations, and I don't think a lot of the traffic planning industry are up to where we are in computing with data gathering and mining, but that doesn't mean that the articles you agree with are what we in the scientific community call "valid". Sorry. SteveLoughran (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Cloud engineering

I have created an AfD for cloud engineering per your suggestion on its talk page. -- samj _in^out 16:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Portsmouth seafront echelon parking.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Portsmouth seafront echelon parking.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...}_{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 04:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Avro

I have just added a comment on the discussion about the noteworthiness of the Avro-article. I think that we should retain this article, but remove the not-noteworthy-box.--Karl Brodowsky (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Active Resistance to Metrication

An article that you have been involved in editing, Active Resistance to Metrication, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Hoary (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)