User talk:SamJohnston: Difference between revisions

Hi

I like towels, do you?--Saucefaces (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Explain removal

You removed my criticism section - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_computing&diff=327762799&oldid=327762662

How is it a coatrack? Explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.40.6 (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism" sections tend to be incoherent collections of random thoughts, which is why they are generally frowned upon. Such topics should be integrated into the relevant section(s) of the article. Also see Template:Criticism-section. -- samj _in^out 20:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

How is it a coatrack? I read the page about coatracks and I don't see how that applies. Wikipedia:Coatrack

How was my criticism section "incoherent" and "random?" It seems clear and relevant to me.

I read the page about criticism sections Wikipedia:Criticism_sections. I don't see how integrating the information into other sections on the page would be better organization for the specific information I posted. The information I posted was not regarding any specific aspect of clouds but rather clouds in general. If I were to integrate that information with other relevant sections then there would be a lot of duplication. Can you suggest any specific sections under which the information should be posted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.40.6 (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It was just suggested to me that the general criticisms I posted might belong in the very top summary section of the article if they are too general to fit anywhere else. Would that be good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.40.6 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest they be integrated into dedicated sections and discussed neturally... your privacy/security "problem" is my "feature" (I'd much rather my health records be on a secure central system than carted around on laptops and USB drives, and I trust external providers' abilities to run secure systems moreso than your average enterprise IT department). -- samj _in^out 15:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeat of unanswered questions - How is it a coatrack? How was my criticism section "incoherent" and "random?" Can you suggest any specific sections under which the information should be posted?

Regarding, "I'd suggest they be integrated into dedicated sections and discussed neturally." It is already neutrally presented from what I can see. Is there some specific part that you think is not neutral? You already suggested the information be integrated into other sections, and I already explained that I don't see how that would be better organization for the specific information I posted, hence my still unanswered question which is repeated above, "can you suggest any specific sections under which the information should be posted?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.40.6 (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I re-added the criticism section after your failure to justify your removal within 4 weeks, including 2 weeks of no response - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_computing&diff=334993789&oldid=334988664 . Please raise any remaining issues in this discussion before taking further action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.40.6 (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your latest re-removal without any notice or discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_computing&diff=335022481&oldid=335021750

You said, "moved to talk page. again. needs to be integrated." Integrated how? Please make specific suggestions. I am having extreme difficulty understanding how to apply your suggestions. Rather than remove important information for what you believe is poor presentation, why not fix the information to conform with your standards? I am having trouble understanding your standards so I think that you are the best person to make the edit. Fix it, improve it, don't remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.40.6 (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok enough already, two can play at this (silly) game. Welcome to Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences. -- samj _in^out 10:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Request edit

As a COI patroller, might you take a look at http://www.american.com/archive/2009/march-2009/the-truth-is-out-there, and see if it merits inclusion in any Wikipedia articles? THF (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cloud computing images

Wow. You crated those images all by yourself? I'm impressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.92.248 (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Cloud computing

Hello. As you're possibly aware, your post to the above page was removed by Mwarren us (talk · contribs) citing WP:OUTING. I'm here to ask you to refrain from making such posts in the future. With your post, you disclosed this user's real name, his creation of a new account, and links to websites with which he is associated. The subject was suitably upset with the post to report it to oversight, so I would ask you to think about the possible real life ramifications of posting such information in the future. Thank you for your time. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know but let's not forget that the guy's account happens to include both his initial, surname and location, and he admitted himself that he is an Oracle employee when called to disclose conflicts (following some very questionable edits no less). How many "M. Warren"s do you suppose work for Oracle in the US? Let's not forget also that the user both created the User:MarkWarren account and linked it back to User:Mwarren us almost 6 months ago, thereby revealing their full name, location and employer of their own accord. Hardly WP:OUTing, wouldn't you say? -- samj _in^out 17:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, understood, and thank you for the explanation. I just wanted to let you know that this was raised by the subject, and that he wasn't happy. It might be best simply to avoid doing that in future, or ask him directly (privately) about it. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest ?

What are you talking about ? hAl (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You know exactly what I'm talking about. -- samj _in^out 12:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

RIA page

sam, hi, just wanted to alert you that the RIA page has been linked to slashdot... to an article about a pure-javascript-only framework that calls itself a "Rich Internet Application" framework. so there is now overwhelming evidence - several articles and at least two published books, along with common everyday usage, that place complex javascript frameworks (not toy ones) and complex javascript applications (such as google maps) smack into the "RIA" camp. Lkcl (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And here is an article that explains that Google Maps should *not* be considered an RIA... it's a fringe theory, and did it occur to you that for many of us RIA is a dirty word? Anyway as lead developer of a Javascript project that purports to be an RIA framework it's no wonder you'd have a[n overly] strong opinion on this point, but please do take a look at WP:COI. -- samj _in^out 12:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Attention

Please stay off my talk page, and please leave me alone. 842U (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop trolling or you'll be blocked. Again. -- samj _in^out 17:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of WorkXpress

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is WorkXpress. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WorkXpress. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock of dynamic DSL range

This block (which has nothing to do with me) is currently preventing me from editing. Please fix it. -- samj _in^out 17:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC) {{90.2.45.8|Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]: Extending rangeblocks that previously expired|PeterSymonds}}

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Syrthiss (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Note

Hello. Please do *not* change votes or anything written by other users on talk, comment or voting pages, as you did here. Best regards, --Thogo (Talk) 12:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? Haven't you got better things to be doing with your time than wasting mine? -- samj _in^out 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sapiosexual

Hi there. Recently, you turned this page from a redirect into an article, with the edit summary 'if it's nn, csd/afd it - don't point it at another word with a different meaning'. I believe it is a non-notable term, and have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at WP:Articles for deletion/Sapiosexual (3rd nomination). Robofish (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Stay cool, collaborate with other editors to build consensus

Dear Sam, I woke up today to the following tweet you sent: "Oh and when I say @turnkeylinux I'm looking straight at you @lirazsiri. Chill out or it's AfD time. Again. /cc @alonswartz"

This kind of aggressive, threatening language is uncalled for and unwelcome on Wikipedia. When you have disagreements with other editors you can and should discuss those disagreements on the talk page and work together to build consensus. And please assume good faith and stay cool while you're at it. Dismissing the opinions of others via ad-hominem attacks (e.g., "@#$#@$@# spammers!") won't get you very far. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not a personal wiki. Please try to keep that in mind.

Case in point, on the cloud computing template's talk page there was a discussion regarding the appropriateness of including an appliances category. Instead of ignoring the discussion and removing that category unilaterally, it would be more helpful if you would share your thoughts and helped convinced others of your opinion. Cheers LirazSiri (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a look at WP:Dispute resolution for guidelines. If you continue edit-warring we are both going to end up wasting a lot of time and energy generating more heat than light. Unilaterally enforcing your own opinions while ignoring other editors and edit warring will eventually get you sanctioned by the community. Let's try to avoid that.LirazSiri (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)