User talk:Nbarth/Archive 2016

Server (computing)

Hi.

I'm calling you regarding something that I found very difficult to do: Reverting several (but not all) of your contributions to Server (computing) article on 15 February 2015. Now I am sure you did them in good faith and there was a lot of good ideas in your contributions, but the text was generally problematic: You had used aberrant forms of word and phrases all over the article. Strange word forms hide the meaning completely, rendering the article unreadable. MOS:COMPUTING § Collocation can help.

In addition, the lead should be a summary of the whole article, and devoid of both novel info and complications.

Please preview your own edits more often. I will read what you wrote again and will try to salvage parts of it.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again

I had a small group of college students read your version of the article and they said the problem was complexity, not so much as bad word forms. They said flooding the lead section with unnecessary jargons like "one-to-one", "one-to-many", "many-to-many", "backend", "microservice", "load balancing", "partitioning" and "sharding" was a bad idea. These need to be elaborated.

I tried reducing complexity and adding a picture too. Give it a read and tell me what you think. I could use your opinion. (Sure, I reverted you once but in general, you do good work.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lisa,

Thanks for the cleanup, and thanks for the thoughtful note!

Agreed, I put far too much terse detail into the lede. I don't believe that any of my usages were incorrect (I'm extremely careful with word usage, and spend a lot of my editing time on that), but agreed that it was jargon-heavy. Thanks for your cleanup; I'll have a shot at incorporating the content into appropriate sections.

A key concern for me is that the article's lede presented a narrow, 1970s-90s view of what a server is (a massive minicomputer serving many clients), without covering current practice (usually clusters of cheap computers, with very varied system architectures). I'll try to balance without complicating; feel free to edit yourself with our without consulting me, but I'm happy to work together!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A lot better! It has been a pleasure working with you. I made one or two correction but I don't insist on them.

By the way, if you don't mind, I remove {{citation needed}} above (which a third party has added) because it categorizes your talk page into the category of pages needing citations.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Real-world economics review

The article Real-world economics review has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Desperation attack listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Desperation attack. Since you had some involvement with the Desperation attack redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)