User talk:Dontbedaft

3RR

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Lustre

I am not against adding information about Whamcloud, but as of now, Lustre is still a trademark owned by Oracle. As far as I know Oracle has a 2.0 beta release, and Oracle has not announced anything about transfering the copyright and IP to other companies.

Adding a community release to the infobox is misleading the public. One can always easily release a fork or community version, but Wikipedia is not a page for promoting your products (for that you can always go for Google Ads). -- Raysonho (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Lustre 2.0 is a GA release, not a beta. The release is announced on the front page of the Oracle hosted lustre.org site (third entry)

Not mentioning the 2.1 community release seems like a serious omission for the Lustre page. This is not a question of advertising something, this is a question of the completeness of information on a given subject.

While it is true that Lustre is still a registered trademark of Oracle and has remained publicly silent on the subject, Oracle has not objected to this activity despite having had ample opportunity to do so this year. It has been discussed on Oracle-hosted mailing lists, widely reported in the press and a presentation was given about the efforts (including the contribution rules) at the 2011 Lustre Users Group - an event that Oracle co-sponsored and had a number of delegates attend

Would it be acceptable to you to create a new section to document the community "fork" (albeit a fork with only one tine)?

Thanks for the reply. Oracle is quiet most of the time, until it starts lawsuits (eg. Google Android). And Oracle has the right to remain silent and keep working on Lustre. One can't just claim ownership of a car even the car has been left unattended in the street for a long period of time.

Thanks for your constructive suggestions relating to this matter. Your point is taken about the possibility of a future action over usage of the trademark. However, I don't think that a physical possession like a car is really a comparable analogy. As I understand it, the right to enforce a trademark does eventually expire if unused for a long period of time.

I am not against putting information in the Lustre page about forks (eg. see the "Commercially supported Hadoop-related products" section in the Apache Hadoop page where I maintain the list of commercial versions). If you look at other Sun-owned open source projects, like MySQL or Openoffice.org, they have a section like "Forks" or "Derivative software". We should do the same, and may be create a section in the Lustre article called "Whamcloud improved Lustre edition", or "Community backed Lustre", or anything like that in the article and briefly document the improvements there. And then create a page for Whamcloud and point from the Lustre page using "Main article" template.

I think that derivative software would be the most consistent way to present this information. I do want to stress that, even though Whamcloud were heavily involved in the Lustre 2.1 release (and presently host the downloads for the release) , this was definitely a community-wide effort with contributions from a number of organizations. I agree that it would be useful to have a Whamcloud article. Do you have some examples I could look at for well-formatted small high-tech company articles?

If you have other ideas or issues with editing, please let me know. -- Raysonho (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Whamcloud. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Jarkeld (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dontbedaft. You have new messages at Jarkeld's talk page.
Message added 11:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jarkeld (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Whamcloud concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Whamcloud, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Whamcloud

Hello Dontbedaft. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Whamcloud.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Whamcloud}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)