User talk:Azarboon

Welcome!

Hello, Azarboon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page CAP theorem did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! PetraMagna (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed your additions, but using blog posts as a source on Wikipedia is usually a bad idea unless you know what you are doing. The existing blog post by Abadi could be counted as reliable since it's (1) written by a subject expert and (2) revisited later in reliable publications, but it should be removed as well since there is a published source that says the same things. PetraMagna (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment. The blog post author is a subject matter expert. Also I mentioned that he "argues" about those counter points; it's good to expand the view of readers but also indicates that the opinion is arguable. Azarboon (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say that not any software engineer is a subject expert, but seeing that Brooker has published in peer-reviewed conferences he definitely ticks that checkbox. However, if someone challenges that source, I am pretty pessimistic about the outcome as having a publication is a very low bar. Re the "argues" wording, it usually applies to biased sources. Using it in this context is fine, but it doesn't automatically justify using an unreliable source. PetraMagna (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Azarboon! Your additions to Serverless computing have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's elegibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I've edited it accordingly: paraphrased and summarized it. Also, the content is free to use under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license (CC BY-SA 4.0). Azarboon (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Yan Cui (software engineer) (May 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Notcharizard was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Yan Cui (software engineer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-- NotCharizard ^🗨 10:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Azarboon! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! -- NotCharizard ^🗨 10:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Note in particular that self published books are not reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie thank you for explanation. i will never cite self published books. Also, is there any black list of publishers? I think once you wrote that IGI Global should not be cited. please let me know if I can find list of such publishers so I won't cite them. Azarboon (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Your edit to Availability has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for mistake. Got your message and will correct it accordingly. Azarboon (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Yan Cui (software engineer)

Hello, Azarboon. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Yan Cui (software engineer), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Distributed transaction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distributed environment. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nostalgia effect (November 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The second source (at least) does not appear to use the phrase 'nostalgia effect' at all. What exactly is it meant to be supporting here? Please cite offline sources with sufficient bibliographical detail to allow them to be verified.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nostalgia effect and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Nostalgia effect has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Nostalgia effect. Thanks! DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Internal developer platform (November 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Encoded was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Internal developer platform and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Encoded Talk 💬 23:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research in "Limitations of Service Level Agreement"

These sections are pretty clear cut original research, specifically analyzing primary sources. I have no doubt you are correct, however a reliable secondary source would be needed for us to cover the limitations of cloud provider SLAs. Brandon (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've added references, however these appear to be generic references about SLAs generally and their limitations. Do you have any references that are specific to the cloud provides to which you added the section and why this would be an "issue?" Again I do not doubt limitations of SLAs are a legitimate issue professionals have to deal with, however that does not warrant a section on every major cloud provider article without substantial secondary coverage of the topic. Brandon (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment and letting us discuss it here. As far as I remember, all added references are explicitly addressing the cloud. Please let me know if you have any specific source in mind, so I will look further into it / replace it.

There are many cloud providers there. Some have looser and some have stricter SLAs. But AWS, GCP and Azure share the same issue (I checked their SLAs individually). I believe it should be added there. Especially that their current page is full of promotional materials. Adding these information will give a more balanced view to readers.

As for "issues": if you have a better alternative, I'm more than happy to reconsider this. BTW, if you check latest versions, I've added more info to their "issues": Azure has lots of issues with security breaches. AWS has issues with surprise bills. So, I've added them. Azarboon (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct myself: As far as I remember, all added references are explicitly addressing the specified cloud provider or cloud in general. Azarboon (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandon After careful consideration, I decided to remove the SLA related content from pages of AWS, GCP and Azure. Thanks for brining this up to my attention. Azarboon (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Cloud computing feels like a better home for the content. Brandon (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]