Content deleted Content added
SamJohnston (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
SamJohnston (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 61:
Disagree as well. Anyone can expose a web service. It takes security, scalability, support, billing, etc. to make is a real ''cloud service''.
==For the record==
( section copied from [[User talk:CliffC]] )
''rv collection of unhelpful edits, sorry if anything good was lost - spam, damaged paragraph, removal of apparently valid links, tag indicating work underway but no work undertaken''
* How were my edits unhelpful? They were accurate and well referenced, unlike the rest of the article which is a regurgitation of some random paper which differs substantially from what the industry and its analysts have to say.
* Why are you apologising on my behalf, or making edits that would result in ''anything good [being] lost''?
* What was spam?
* What paragraph was damaged (I had added a new paragraph)
* What 'apparently valid' link was removed (except for [[Redundant Array of Inexpensive Servers]], a term referenced once by a paper over a decade old which is likely to be deleted soon and which has very little to do with the topic?
* How do you determine ''no work undertaken'' when the tag had just been added and should not be removed unless there have been no edits for several days per [[Template:Underconstruction]]?
[[User:Samj|samj]] ([[User talk:Samj|talk]]) 06:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually I was just thinking that these edits may indeed seem out of context with the rest of the article. There has been much discussion on this topic recently, and I have spent the last few days working on a consensus definition which you can read about here: [http://samj.net/2008/07/cloud-and-cloud-computing-consensus.html The Cloud and Cloud Computing consensus definition?]. Maybe you can read through this, and the references at the bottom as well as the Forrester and Gartner reports if you are really interested in this topic.
[[User:Samj|samj]] ([[User talk:Samj|talk]]) 06:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
:Hi Samj. Before I made the reverts with the edit summary you mention above, I reverted two edits by your account (the diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_computing&diff=228271492&oldid=228268270 here] shows the before and after of my revert). I should have left an edit summary, but my reasoning was that your edits added an apparent promotional link to ebizq.net. Promotional links violate [[WP:EL]]. In addition the link is to a blog, also against [[WP:EL]], unless the author is [[WP:NOTE|notable]].
:Next, the collection of edits I reverted with the edit summary you mention (diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_computing&diff=228273131&oldid=228271492 here]), edits made by you and several other editors, seemed intertwined and not worth reverting separately.
:''"...spam, damaged paragraph, removal of apparently valid links, tag indicating work underway but no work undertaken"''
:*''spam'' - the misplaced link to gridbus.org has the appearance of spam bacause it was inserted in the wrong place. May not be spam, but the paper linked may not be a [[WP:RS]] either. I didn't bother to read it because of the link placement.
:*''damaged paragraph'' - IMO at that moment replacing the lead sentences
::'''Cloud computing''' is a style of [[Computing|computing]] where IT-related capabilities are provided “as a service” using Internet technologies to multiple external customers<ref>[http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=707508 Gartner Says Cloud Computing Will Be As Influential As E-business]</ref>. Resources being accessed which are typically owned and operated by a third-party provider on a consolidated basis in [[Data Center|datacenter]] locations
::with
::'''Cloud computing''' refers to computing resources being accessed which are typically owned and operated by a third-party provider on a consolidated basis in [[Data Center]] locations.
::- appeared to damage the paragraph, that assessment was perhaps incorrect and simply a matter of editing style/taste. Perhaps I had become impatient with the number of edits over the past weeks that seem to come from someone with something to sell. But I did use the phrase "sorry if anything good was lost", and I do apologize for this one.
:*''removal of apparently valid links'' - links to cloud articles in businessweek.com and infoworld.com
:*''tag indicating work underway but no work undertaken'' - tag {{tl|underconstruction}} added to article with the summary "article's a mess - needs an overhaul" by an editor with '''zero''' edits in the past except for three AfD votes for his favorite singer and musical group. Without a contribution to the article this looks more like vandalism than a constructive edit. I have no objection to the tag (which may be argued against by the article's regular editors), only to its source.
:I have too much going on in the non-wiki world to read and comment on the consensus document at your web site, but I encourage you to mention it on the talk page so that you have a chance at a true consensus. --[[User:CliffC|CliffC]] ([[User talk:CliffC#top|talk]]) 20:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
:: Ok makes more sense now. I have hundreds of edits spanning back to 2005 and a bunch of others with [[SPA]]s so maybe I was logged out or you checked while the history was catching up to my recent rename (from an alias to my full name). In any case the existing article was based entirely on a (non-notable?) paper written by a lab working on [[grid computing]] and was quite detached from reality. As I have some time on my hands I've spent the last days trying to align the two. [[User:SamJohnston|samj]] ([[User talk:SamJohnston|talk]]) 08:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:: Alright so now the article has been completely overhauled and properly referenced (per complaints made about it) it's pretty clear that my edits weren't spam so I'm archiving this. [[User:SamJohnston|samj]] ([[User talk:SamJohnston|talk]]) 08:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
| |||