Talk:Two-phase commit protocol: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:45, 21 November 2011

Latest revision as of 06:32, 7 February 2024

(14 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject Computerbanner science}}shell|class=C|

{{WPDATABASE|class=CWikiProject Computer science|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Databases|importance=High}}

}}

{{tmbox

| type = notice

Line 13 ⟶ 15:

}}

}}

{{computing diagram requested|an image to replace the ASCII diagram in "Message flow" section}}

== Wikipedia text on Tree and Dynamic 2PC (D2PC) copied "as is" to a COIT 2008 conference paper ==

Line 49 ⟶ 51:

::On the other hand, with all the concerns about Wikipedia quality and credibility, it is quite amusing to find Wikipedia text in a scientific article (but without admitting, of course)... -- [[User:Comps|Comps]] ([[User talk:Comps|talk]]) 14:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

::: Default copyright in most countries is that if there's no statement, it's ''not'' free for use. --[[User:Jerome Baum|Jerome Baum]] ([[User talk:Jerome Baum|talk]]) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

See also [[Wikipedia:Help desk#Plagiarism from Wikipedia found: What is the policy?]] -- [[User:Comps|Comps]] ([[User talk:Comps|talk]]) 16:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Line 96 ⟶ 100:

The redo log is mentioned just once. The article needs to describe how it is actually used after an entry is added to the redo log. [[User:Mre5765|Mre5765]] ([[User talk:Mre5765|talk]]) 15:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

== Yoav Raz ==

== Tag: "The neutrality of this article is disputed" for the section [[Two-phase commit protocol#Tree two-phase commit protocol|Tree two-phase commit protocol]] ==

The neutrality of part of this page is disputed, as part of a wider discussion. See [[Talk:Commitment ordering]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science#User:Comps / Commitment ordering]]. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 14:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

::I find this entire discussion improper. The "disputed neutrality" is not explained. What facts in the article(s) are disputed? The "discussion" has never been carried out in [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science#User:Comps / Commitment ordering]], except request for attention for a long list of related "suspected" articles that at least some of them (if not all) have been similarly tagged. The "discussion" went in March 2012 to archive with ''nothing'' factual said or concluded. The tag should be removed. I also see that it recently ignited another similar baseless "discussion" named "The Raz infection is spreading" in [[Talk:Commitment ordering]]. I cannot avoid thinking about "The Jews infection" in Nazi slur. [[Special:Contributions/65.96.201.116|65.96.201.116]] ([[User talk:65.96.201.116|talk]]) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The tag links to the talk page, but no discussion on this here.

:::The archived main discussion: [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_science/Archive_10#User:Comps_.2F_Commitment_ordering]]

What facts in the section are not neutral (biased) and disputed? --[[User:Comps|Comps]] ([[User talk:Comps|talk]]) 23:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

:::[[Special:Contributions/65.96.201.116|65.96.201.116]] ([[User talk:65.96.201.116|talk]]) 15:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

*[[User:Ruud Koot]], you have been so eager to put the tag, like in other four articles that mention [[Commitment ordering]], that you have put this tag here for ''Commitment ordering'' (see tag in article) and you have not even noticed that Commitment ordering ''is not mentioned here at all!'' So I guess this is not an attack just on Commitment ordering but rather on Dr. [[Yoav Raz]] (you took an active part in deleting the Wikipedia article [[Yoav Raz]]). Have you read the tagged section at all? Again, I wonder what bias you see here, and why you put a tag for Commitment ordering that is not relevant here. You also have not explained what bias you see in the other four articles. --[[User:Comps|Comps]] ([[User talk:Comps|talk]]) 00:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

*[[User:Ruud Koot]], note that the entire description of your tagged section appears in the text-book reference [[Weikum and Vossen 2001]] which completely relies on Dr. [[Yoav Raz]]'s article (which is also referenced here). Do you also accuse Weikum and Vossen with bias? This time this is obviously ridiculous. --[[User:Comps|Comps]] ([[User talk:Comps|talk]]) 00:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)